Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Mohammad Rafiq, CJ, and Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
M.P. Road Development Corporation v. The Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (MORT&H) & Another
Writ Petition No. 11783 of 2021(Jabalpur); Decided on 3.9.2021
(1) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -- Ss. 16 and 34 -- M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 -- S.7-A --jurisdiction of tribunal -- despite existence of arbitration tribunal under Adhiniyam of 1983, parties agreed for arbitration under aegis of International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR) in accordance with ICADR Rules and Act of 1996 -- consciouslydid not mention arbitration tribunal established underAdhiniyam of 1983 -- petitioner cannot be permitted now to raise plea that parties wanted to refer future disputes to arbitration tribunal constituted under Adhiniyam of 1983. SLP No.10676 of 2018 decided on 4.5.2018, 2012 (2) JLJ 329 (SC), 2008 (2) JLJ 364 (SC), Arbitration Case No.21 of 2014 decided on 21.7.2015, 2017 (3) JLJ 66 (FB), Arbitration Case No.5 of 2016, W.P. No.16194 of 2018 and Sk. 1994 SCC Online Cal. 4 distinguished. (2011) 13 SCC 261 referred to. [Para 14
(2) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -- Ss. 5 and 2 (3) -- scope of Act -- is self-contained code dealing with every aspect of arbitration -- legislative policy in consolidating all laws relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration, enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is aimed at ensuring not only speedy disposal of arbitration cases but also timely execution of awards. (2011) 8 SCC 333, (2005) 8 SCC 618 and (2020) 15 SCC 706 followed. (2002) 2SCC 388 referred to. [Para 15
(3) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -- Ss. 16 and 34 -- jurisdiction of tribunal -- plea that arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction -- shall be raised not later than submission of statement of defence -- party shall not be precluded from raising such plea merely because he has appointed, or participated in appointment of, arbitrator -- where tribunal rejects plea, it shall continue with arbitral proceedings and make arbitral award -- however, aggrieved party is not remediless against rejection of objection to jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal -- remedy has only been deferred till stage of S. 34 -- party aggrieved by arbitral award may apply for setting aside arbitral award in accordance with S. 34. [Para 19
(4) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -- Ss. 16 (2) and 34
-- jurisdiction of tribunal -- argument of petitioner that arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction or that it was not given proper notice of appointment of arbitrator -- may only be available as ground of challenge to award if eventually award were to be passed against it -- challenge u/s. 34 against rejection of application u/s. 16(2) is efficacious remedy. (2020) 15 SCC 706, (2011) 14 SCC 337 and (2021) SCC Online SC 8 followed. 2019 SCC Online SC 1154 referred to. [Paras 20 & 21
¼1½ ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 && /kkjk 16 rFkk 34 && e-iz- ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 && /kkjk 7&d && vf/kdj.k dh vf/kdkfjrk && 1983 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k ds vfLrRo esa gksus ds ckotwn i{kdkjksa us varjkZ"Vªh; oSdfYid fookn lek/kku dsanz ¼vkbZ lh , Mh vkj½ ds rÙokèkku esa vkbZ lh , Mh vkj fu;eksa vkSj 1996 ds vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj ekè;LFke~ dk djkj fd;k && 1983 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu LFkkfir ek/;LFke~ vfèkdj.k dk tku&cw>dj mYys[k ugha fd;k && ;kph dks vc vfHkokd~ djus ugha fn;k tk ldrk fd i{kdkj Hkkoh fooknksa dks 1983 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu xfBr ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k dks fufnZ"V djuk pkgrs FksA fo'ks"k btktr ;kfpdk Ø&10676 lu~ 2018 fu.khZr fnukad 4&5&2018] 2012 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 329 ¼mPpre U;k&½ 2008 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 364 ¼mPpre U;k&½ ek/;LFke ekeyk Ø& 21 lu~ 2014 fu.khZr fnukad 21&7&2015] 2017 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 66 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] ek/;LFke~ ekeyk Ø-5 lu~ 2016] fjV ;kfpdk Ø& 16194 lu~ 2018 rFkk 1994 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu dy&4 izHksfnrA ¼2011½13 ,l lh lh 261 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 14
¼2½ ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 && /kkjk 5 rFkk 2¼3½ && vfèkfu;e dh O;kfIr && ek/;LFke~ ds izR;sd igyw ds laca/k esa ;g Lo;aiw.kZ lafgrk gS && ns'kh ek/;LFke~] varjkZ"Vªh; okf.kfT;d ek/;LFke~] fons'kh ek/;LFke~ iapkVksa ds izorZu ls lacaf/kr leLr fof/k dks lesfdr djus dh fo/kk;h uhfr dk y{; ekè;LFke~ ekeyksa dk 'kh?kz fuiVkjk gh ugha] vfirq iapkVksa dk le; ls fu"iknu Hkh lqfuf'pr djuk gSA ¼2011½8 ,l lh lh 333] ¼2005½8 ,l lh lh 618 rFkk ¼2020½15 ,l lh lh 706 vuqlfjrA ¼2002½2 ,l lh lh 388 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 15
¼3½ ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 && /kkjk 16 rFkk 34 && vfèkdj.k dh vf/kdkfjrk && ;g vfHkokd~ fd ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k dks vf/kdkfjrk ugha && izfrj{kk dFku izLrqr fd, tkus ds i'pkr~ ugha fd;k tk,xk && i{kdkj ,slk vfHkokd~ djus ls ek= blfy, izokfjr ugha gksxk fd mlus e/;LFk fu;qDr fd;k gS ;k mldh fu;qfDr esa Hkkx fy;k gS && tgak vf/kdj.k vfHkokd~ ukeatwj djrk gS ogk¡ og ek/;LFke~ dk;Zokgh tkjh j[ksxk vkSj ek/;LFke~ iapkV cuk,xk && rFkkfi] O;fFkr i{k ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k dh vf/kdkfjrk ds fo#) vkifÙk ds ukeatwjh ds fo#) fu:ik; ugha && mipkj dks dsoy /kkjk 34 ds izØe rd vkLFkfxr fd;k x;k gS && ek/;LFke~ iapkV ls O;fFkr i{k ek/;LFke~ iapkV vikLr djokus ds fy, /kkjk 34 ds vuqlkj vkosnu dj ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 19
¼4½ ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 && /kkjk 16 ¼2½ rFkk 34 && vfèkdj.k dh vf/kdkfjrk && ;kph dk rdZ fd ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k dks vf/kdkfjrk ugha gS vFkok mls e/;LFk dh fu;qfDr dh mfpr lwpuk ugha nh xbZ && iapkV ij vk{ksi ds fy, vk/kkj ds :i esa dsoy rc miyC/k gksxk tc varr% iapkV mlds fo#) ikfjr fd;k tk, && /kkjk 16¼2½ ds v/khu vkosnu dh ukeatwjh ds fo#) /kkjk 34 ds v/khu vk{ksi izHkkoh mipkj gSA ¼2020½15 ,l lh lh 706] ¼2011½14 ,l lh lh 337 rFkk ¼2021½ ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,l lh 8 vuqlfjrA 2019 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,l lh 1154 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 20 ,oa 21
ORDER
Rafiq, C.J. -- 1. This writ petition has been filed by M.P. Road Development Corporation challenging the order dated 29.12.2020 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal which is in seisin over the dispute arising out of the concession agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 on 25.1.2021 to augment the existing road from km 2229/10 to km 140/6 approximately 89.300 kms on the Rewa to MP/UP Border section of the National Highway No.7 by four laning on design, build, finance, operate and transfer (DBFOT) basis on the terms and conditions set forth therein. By the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner on 24.12.2020 under section 16 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1996” for short) contending that the dispute falls within the definition of ‘works contract’ over which the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “the Adhiniyam of 1983” for short) would have exclusive jurisdiction and therefore, the learned Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, has been rejected.
2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, fully owned by the State Government having its head office at Bhopal. The agreement in question was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.2. Upon a dispute having been arisen between them, the respondent No.2 invoked the Arbitration Clause No.44.3 of the Concession Agreement and appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikramjit Sen, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India as its nominee arbitrator. The petitioner instead of appointing its arbitrator, raised a dispute that the matter is required to be adjudicated by the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Adhiniyam of 1983. Since the petitioner failed to appoint arbitrator as per Clause 44.3.2, the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, New Delhi having been empowered under Clause 44.3.1 of the Agreement by invoking rule 5 of the ICADR Rules, appointed Shri Amarjit Singh Chandhiok as its nominee arbitrator. Both the arbitrators then nominated Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri, former Judge of Supreme Court of India as the Presiding Arbitrator. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the Arbitral Tribunal under section 16 of the Act of 1996 contending that it has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties and also contending that since the dispute between the parties under the Concession Agreement falls within the definition of ‘works contract’, therefore, in view of Clause 44.4 of the Concession Agreement, Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Adhiniyam of 1983 would have the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The learned Arbitral Tribunal by impugned order dated 29.12.2020 dismissed the said application. Hence this writ petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, learned Advocate General referring to definition of ‘works contract’ in section 2(1)(i) of the Adhiniyam of 1983 contended that the essential elements for any work to be termed as a ‘works contract’ is that the work must be for construction, repair or maintenance of a road and must be executed by the State or its Corporation. This provision nowhere provides that the State or its Corporation must be the owner of the said work. It further clarifies that even when there is no State support agreement, the work would still fall within the definition of works contract. Learned Advocate General argued that section 5 of the National Highway Act provides it shall be the responsibility of the Central Government to develop and maintain in proper repair all national highways, but the Central Government may, by notification in the Gazette, direct that any function in relation to development or maintenance of any national highway, shall, subject to such conditions, if any, as
The High Court affirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal over disputes arising from a works contract, asserting arbitration clauses cannot override statutory mand....
Point of Law : Arbitration - Concession Agreement – Maintainability of writ - Power under Article 227 of Constitution in a rare and exceptional circumstance - When an alternative and efficacious reme....
Section 12 sets out grounds of challenge to person appointed as arbitrator and duty of an arbitrator appointed, to disclose any disqualification he may have.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the arbitrator under the Act, 1996, and the applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 to the di....
Arbitration dispute - Jurisdiction - though there was no patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, the High Court who ought to have dismissed the writ petition.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Kunal Thakre For the Respondent : Siddharth Sharma
Jurisdictional objections to arbitration awards must be raised during proceedings, not at execution; failure to do so leads to unenforceable awards.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
