The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'public undertaking' in the Madhyastham Act, specifically Section 2(1)(g), and the court's determination that the Indore Municipal Corporation is substantially controlled by the State Government, making it a public undertaking.

Prakash Shrivastava, J.

By this arbitration case filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 a prayer has been made by the applicant for appointing the independent arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties.

2. The case of the applicant is that the Respondent-Indore Municipal Corporation had awarded the contract to the applicant for construction of overflow spillway across river Gambhir and the work order dated 18.4.2007 was issued with stipulated period of 24 months. The completion of the work was delayed for certain reasons and the completion certificate was finally issued on 30.9.2012. Certain amount was withheld by the respondent-Municipal Corporation, therefor, the applicant had sent the letter dated 21.5.2012 and 26.9.2012. The defect liability period of 24 months expired on 30.9.2014, therefore, vide letter dated 13.10.2014 a request was made by the applicant for retaining Rs.20 Lakhs and releasing the balance amount but the respondent-Municipal Corporation retained more than the said amount and had released only Rs.45,32,727/-. According to the applicant, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,75,74,381.50. The applicant had served the notice dated 21.4.2015 on the Commissioner and made unsuccessful attempt to serve notice dated 21.4.2015 and 15.5.2015 to the Engineer-in-charge and the Project Officer. Thereafter notice dated 2.7.2015 was sent to appoint the panel of arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause. Since no action was taken by the respondents, therefore, present arbitration case is filed.

3. The respondents have filed the reply taking the stand that the work awarded to the applicant was in the nature of Works Contract and the respondent-Indore Municipal Corporation is a public undertaking, therefore, the applicant has remedy to seek arbitration under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (For short "Madhyastham Act") and the present application is not maintainable and that the bills of the applicant have been settled and the claim has now become time barred.

4. Core issue is as to whether the Indore Municipal Corporation is a public undertaking as defined in Section 2(1) (g) of the Madhyastham Act and applicant has remedy before the Madhyastham Tribunal?

5. Counsel for both the parties have relied upon the judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of their submission. In order to find out if the aforesaid issue is concluded by any of them, these judgments are examined at the first instance.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Gulab Bai wd/o Shriram Chandra Sanotia and others Vs. Subhash Chandra, 2013 (3) MPLJ 434 but the said judgment was delivered in different context wherein the issue was in respect of the entitlement of a landlord, who was a retired employee of the Municipal Corporation, to approach the Rent Controlling Authority under Section 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. In the definition of landlord under Section 23-J, retired servant of a Company owned and controlled either by the Central or State Government, are covered. The said definition is materially different from the definition of public undertaking given in Section 2(1)(g) of the Madhyastham Act. Even otherwise in the matter of Subhash Chandra Vs. Gulab Bai and others, 2016 (4) SCC 750, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred the matter to the larger bench for interpretation of Section 23(J)(ii) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

7. In another judgment in the matter of Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Drug and others Vs. M/s. Janico Designers and Executors, Drug, 1991 AIR(MP) 233 before the Full Bench of this Court issue of arbitrability by Madhyastham Tribunal had come up, wherein the Municipal Corporation was superseded and administrator was appointed, therefore, the full bench had taken the view that for the dispute between the administrator and contractor executing