SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(MP) 56

2012(2) JLJ 329
(SUPREME COURT)
A.K. Ganguly and G.S. Misra, JJ.
M.P. Rural Road Development Authority v. M/s. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Construction
Civil Appeal No.974 of 2012 : against the judgment and order of the High Court of M.P. in A.C. No.14 of 2010; Decided on 24.1.2012.

Advocates:
K.K. Venugopal with Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Puja Dhar, Ankur Talwar, B.S. Banthia, Vikas Upadhyay, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Anand Dixit and Pratyush Tripathi for appearing parties.

Headnote:Per Ganguly, J.

       (1) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -- Ss.2(4), 2(5), 9, 11 and 46 -- M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 -- Ss.2(a), 2(i) and 7 -- Central Act saved the provisions of State Act -- hence, no substance in argument of repugnancy -- State Act will prevail being a special Act.

       If this Court compares the provisions of the M.P. Act with A.C. Act 1996 then the Court finds that the provisions of M.P. Act are inconsistent with the provisions of A.C. Act 1996. The M.P. Act is a special law providing for statutory arbitration in the State of Madhya Pradesh even in the absence of arbitration agreement. Under the provisions of A.C. Act 1996 in the absence of an arbitration agreement, arbitration is not possible. There is also difference in the formation of arbitration Tribunal as is clear from section 2(1)(d) of A.C. Act, 1996. Again under A.C. Act, 1996, arbitral Tribunal is defined under section 2(1)(d) as a sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. But under M.P. Act such a Tribunal is created under sections 3 and 4 of the Act. And under the M.P. Act dispute has a special meaning as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Act whereas dispute has not been defined under the A.C. Act 1996. [Para 25

       Held : The M.P. Act 1983 was reserved for the assent of the President and admittedly received the same on 17.10.1983 which was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary dated 12.10.1983. Therefore, the requirement of Article 254(2) of the Constitution was satisfied. Thus, M.P. Act of 1983 prevails in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, A.C. Act 1996 was enacted by Parliament repealing the earlier laws of arbitration of 1940. It has also been noted that A.C. Act 1996 saves the provisions of M.P. Act 1983 under sub-sections 2(4) and 2(5) thereof. Therefore, there cannot be any repugnancy. AIR 1983 SC 150, (1979)3 SCC 431 and 2008(2) JLJ 364 (SC) relied on. Civil Appeal No.3746 and 3747 of 2005 set aside.

       (2) Legal Maxims -- decision given ‘per incuriam‘ -- means decision given in ignorance of the terms of Statute -- cannot be accepted as a precedent to decide the controversy in any case. (1955)2 SCR 603, JT 1991(3) SC 268 and JT 1988(4) SC 11 relied on. [Paras 30 & 41

       Per Mishra, J.

       (3) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -- Ss.2(4), 2(5), 9, 11 and 46 -- M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 -- Ss.2(a), 2(i) and 7 -- works contract itself became non-existent as a consequence of its cancellation -- matter will have to be referred to an independent arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not to M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal.

       However, when the works contract itself becomes non-existent as a consequence of its cancellation, the matter will have to be referred to an independent arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not to M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal.

        [Para 60

       Thus, while holding that the M.P. Act 1983 should operate in the State of M.P. in respect of certain specified types of arbitration, the appointment of an independent arbitrator by the High Court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 needs to be sustained since the works contract itself is not in existence by virtue of its cancellation and hence this part of the dispute could not have been referred to the M.P. State Tribunal.

       

       U;k- xkaxqyh &

       

        ¼1½ ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 & /kkjk 2¼4½] 2¼5½] 9] 11 rFkk 46 & e-iz- ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 & /kkjk 2¼d½] 2¼>½ rFkk 7 & dsanzh; vf/kfu;e )kjk jkT; vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa dh O;ko`fr & blfy,] fojks/k ds rdZ esa dksbZ lkj ugha & jkT; vf/kfu;e fo‘ks"k vf/kfu;e gksus ds dkj.k vfHkHkkoh gksxk A

        ;fn og U;k;ky; e-iz- vf/kfu;e dh ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 ls rqyuk djs rc bl U;k;ky; dk fu"d"kZ gksrk gS fd e-iz- vf/kfu;e ds mica/k ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 ls vlaxr gS A e-iz- vf/kfu;e ,d fo‘ks"k fof/k gS tks ek/;LFke~ djkj dh vuqifLFkfr esa Hkh e/; izns‘k jkT; esa dkuwuh ek/;LFke~ ds fy, mica/k djrh gS A ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ek/;LFke~ djkj ds vHkko esa ek/;LFke~ laHko ugha gS A

        ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k ds cuk, tkus esa Hkh varj gS ;Fkk ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 dh /kkjk 2¼1½¼?k½ ls Li"V gS A iqu% ek/;LFke~ rFkk lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 ds v/khu ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k /kkjk 12¼1½¼?k½ ds v/khu ,dek= e/;LFk ;k e/;LFkksa ds iSuy ds :i esa ifjHkkf"kr fd;k x;k gS A iajrq e-iz- vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ,slk vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 rFkk 4 ds v/khu l`ftr fd;k x;k gS] rFkk e-iz- vf/kfu;e ds v/khu fookn dk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼1½¼?k½ ds v/khu ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fo‘ks"k vFkZ gS tcfd ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 ds v/khu fookn dks ifjHkkf"kr ugha x;k gS A

        vfHkfu/kkZfjr % e-iz- vf/kfu;e] 1983 jk"Vªifr dh vuqefr ds fy, vkjf{kr j[kk x;k rFkk Lohd`r :i ls 17-10-1983 dks vuqefr izkIr dh ftls e/; izns‘k jkti= vlk/kkj.k fnukad 12-10-1983 esa izdkf‘kr fd;k x;k A blfy,] lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 254¼2½ dh vis{kk dh rqf"V gqbZ A bl izdkj 1983 dk e-iz- vf/kfu;e e-iz- jkT; esa vfHkHkkoh gksrk gS A rRi‘pkr~ laln )kjk 1940 ds ek/;LFke~ dh iwoZ fof/k;ksa dk fujlu djus okys ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e dh vf/kfu;fefr dh xbZ A ;g Hkh fVIi.k fd;k x;k fd ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 viuh mi/kkjkvksa 2¼4½ rFkk 2¼5½ ds v/khu e-iz- vf/kfu;e] 1983 ds mica/kksa dh O;ko`fr djrk gS A blfy,] dksbZ fojks/k ugha gks ldrk A , vkb vkj 1983 ,l lh 150] ¼1979½3 ,l lh lh 431 rFkk 2008¼2½ ts ,y ts 364 ¼mPpre U;k-½ voyafcr A flfoy vihy dz-3746 rFkk 3747 lu~ 2005 vikLr A

        ¼2½ fof/kd lw= & ^vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k* fn;k x;k fofu‘p; & dkuwu ds fuca/kuksa dh vKkurk esa fn, x, fofu‘p; dk vFkZ j[krk gS & fdlh ekeys esa fookn dk fofu‘p; djus ds fy, iwoZ U;k; ds :i esa Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk A ¼1995½2 ,l lh vkj 603] ts Vh 1991¼3½ ,l lh 268 rFkk ts Vh 1988¼4½ ,l lh 11 voyafcr A

       ¼iSjk 30 ,oa 41

       U;k- feJk &

        ¼3½ ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 & /kkjk 2¼4½] 2¼5½] 9] 11 rFkk 46 & e-iz- ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 & /kkjk 2¼d½] 2¼>½ rFkk 7 & ladeZ lafonk vius jn~ndj.k ds ifj.kkeLo:i Lo;a vfo|eku gqbZ & ekeyk ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 ds v/khu Lora= e/;LFk dks fufnZ"V fd;k tkuk gksxk u fd e-iz- jkT; ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k dks A

        vfHkfu/kkZfjr % rFkkfi] tc ladeZ lafonk vius jn~ndj.k ds ifj.kkeLo:i vfo|eku gksrh gS] ekeyk ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 ds v/khu Lora= e/;LFk dks fufnZ"V fd;k tkuk gksxk u fd e-iz- jkT; ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k dks A

       bl izdkj] vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gq, Hkh fd ek/;LFke~ ds dfri; fofufnZ"V izdkjksa ds lanHkZ esa jkT; esa e-iz- vf/kfu;e] 1983 izo`r gksuk pkfg,] ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 ds v/khu mPp U;k;ky; )kjk Lora= e/;LFk dh fu;qfDr dks ekU; fd, tkus dh vko‘;drk gS D;ksfd ladeZ lafonk vius jn~ndj.k ds dkj.k Lo;a vfLrRo esa ugha gS rFkk blfy, fookn dk ;g Hkkx e-iz- jkT; vf/kdj.k dks fufnZ"V ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk A

       

JUDGMENT

Ganguly, J. -- 1. Leave granted.

2. The question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the provision of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter, M.P. Act’) which statutorily provides for the parties to the Works Contract to refer all disputes to the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under section 7 of the Act will continue to operate in view of the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘A.C. Act 1996’) which is a Central Act, subsequently enacted.

3. The facts leading to the aforesaid controversy be noted first.

4. The appellant-Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority, impugning the judgment of the High Court dated 8.9.2001 in this appeal, entered into a ‘Works Contract’ with the respondent for construction and maintenance of Rural Road Package No.1958, District Jhabua.

5. Clause 24 of the Contract contains the ‘Dispute Redress Mechanism’ and clause 24.1 of the same provides as under :

“24.1 If any dispute or difference of any kind what-so-ever shall arise in connection with or arising out of this Contract or the execution of work of maintenance of the works thereunder, whether before its commencement or during the progress of works or after the termination, abandonment or breach of the contract, it shall, in the first instance, be referred for settlement to competent authority, described along with their powers in the Contract Data, above the rank of the Engineer. The competent authority shall, within a period of forty five days after being requested in writing by the Contractor to do so, convey his decision to the Contractor. Such decision in respect of every matter so referred shall, subject to review as hereinafter provided, be final and binding upon the contractor. In case the works is already in progress, the Contractor shall proceed with the execution of the works, including maintenance thereof, pending receipt of the decision of the competent authority as aforesaid, with all due diligence.”

6. Under the ‘M.P. Act’ “dispute” has statutorily been defined under section 2(d) :

“2(d) “dispute” means claim of ascertained money valued at Rs.50,000/- or more relating to any difference arising out of the execution, or non-execution of a works contract or part thereof.”

7. “Works Contract” has also been defined under section 2(i) of the M.P. Act :

“2(i) “Works contract” means an agreement in writing for the execution of any work relating to construction repair or maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert, factory, workshop, powerhouse, transformers or such other works of the State Government or Public Undertaking as the State Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf at any of its stages, entered into by the State Government or by an official of the State Government or Public Undertaking or its official for and on behalf of such Public Undertaking and includes an agreement for the supply of goods or material and all other matters relating to the execution of any of the said works.”

8. “Reference to Tribunal” is statutorily provided under section 7 of the M.P. Act :

“7. Reference to Tribunal. -- (1) either party to a works contract shall irrespective of the fact whether the agreement contains an arbitration clause or not, refer in writing the dispute to the Tribunal.

(2) Such reference shall be drawn up in such form as may be prescribed and shall be supported by an affidavit verifying the averments.

(3) The reference shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed.

(4) Every reference shall be accompanied by such documents or other evidence and by such other fees for service or execution of processes as may be prescribed.

(5) On receipt of the reference under sub-section (1), if the Tribunal is satisfied that the reference is a fit case for adjudication, it may admit the reference but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied it may summarily reject the reference after























































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top