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

2022 Supreme(MP) 694

High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Sheel Nagu, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, JJ.
GAYATRI PROJECT LTD. – APPELLANT
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. – RESPONDENT
Arb. Appeal No. 79 of 2021
Decided On : 07-01-2022

Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : Kunal Thakre
For the Respondent : Siddharth Sharma

Headnote:

Arbitration Appeal - Jurisdiction - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34 - Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 - [Section 34(2)(b)(i), Section 34(2)(b)(ii), Section 7, Section 16(2)] - The court discussed the applicability of the Act of 1983 over the subject-matter of the dispute and the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal under the Act of 1996. The court referred to various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to establish that the Act of 1983 prevails over the Act of 1996 in respect of disputes of 'works contract', and the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal under the Act of 1996 is barred by operation of law. The court also highlighted the legal position that an arbitral award will be set aside if the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force.

Fact of the Case:

An agreement was executed between the appellant and the respondent for the work of rehabilitation and strengthening of certain roads. The appellant invoked the arbitration clause after a request for reimbursement was rejected. An award was pronounced in favor of the appellant, but the respondent filed an application under section 34 of the Act of 1996 for setting aside the arbitral award on the ground that the award passed by the Arbitration Tribunal under the provisions of the Act of 1996 is without jurisdiction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the arbitral award was without jurisdiction as the subject-matter of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal created under the Act of 1983. The court also held that the objection regarding lack of jurisdiction could have been taken before the learned trial Court under section 34 of the Act of 1996, even though no such objection was taken before the arbitral tribunal under section 16(2) of the Act.

Issues: The issues involved the applicability of the Act of 1983 over the subject-matter of the dispute, the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal under the Act of 1996, and the objection regarding lack of jurisdiction under section 16(2) of the Act of 1996.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the legal principle that the Act of 1983 prevails over the Act of 1996 in respect of disputes of 'works contract', and the objection regarding lack of jurisdiction could have been taken before the learned trial Court under section 34 of the Act of 1996, even though no such objection was taken before the arbitral tribunal under section 16(2) of the Act.

Final Decision: The appeal under section 37 of the 1996 Act was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their respective costs. The appellant was given the option to raise a dispute before the Tribunal under the Act of 1983 and seek condonation of delay on the principles of section 14 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. : – This Arbitration Appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1996”) takes exception to the impugned order dated 20-12-2019, passed by the Commercial Court and 19th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (M.P.) allowing an application under section 34 of the Act of 1996, preferred by the respondent, whereby, the original award dated 8-7-2011 pronounced by the sole Arbitrator, appointed under the provisions of the Act of 1996, has been set aside.

2. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and another vs. M/s L. G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors, (2018) 10 SCC 826, learned counsel appearing for the appellant does not dispute the applicability of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1983”), over the subject-matter of the present dispute. However, his singular grievance is that the award, passed under the provisions of the Act of 1996 by the Arbitral Tribunal before decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case L. G. Choudhary (supra), had attained finality and the same cannot be interfered with only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

3. The brief facts for adjudication of the present appeal are that on 12-12-2005, an agreement was executed between the appellant and the respondent for the work of rehabilitation and strengthening of Khargone – Barwani road (SH-26) Project Road No. 19 and rehabilitation and strengthening of Khargone – Biston road (SH-31) Project Road No. 20 for a sum of Rs. 58,25,28,228/-. On 31-3-2009, the work was completed. However, on 3-11-2009 a request made by the appellant for reimbursement of the extra cost incurred due to enhancement of entry tax, was rejected which gave rise to him to invoke the arbitration clause. After nomination of Arbitrators by both the parties, the Presiding Arbitrator was appointed by the nominated Arbitrators, and finally, award dated 8-7-2011 was pronounced wherein a sum of Rs. 1,03,55,187/- was awarded in favour of the appellant.

4. The respondent preferred an application under section 34 of the Act of 1996 for setting aside the arbitral award before the Court below, which has been allowed on the ground that the award passed by the Arbitration Tribunal under the provisions of the Act of 1996 is without jurisdiction and the subject-matter of the dispute falls within the definition of “Works Contract”, therefore, it is only the statutory Tribunal created under the provisions of the Act of 1983 which has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the subject-matter.

5. Shri Kunal Thakre, learned counsel for the appellant, has made following submissions to substantiate his arguments as noted in para 2 above :

    (i) The respondent has not raised any objection with respect to applicability of the Act of 1983, or the non-applicability of the Act of 1996 before the Arbitration Tribunal, therefore, the objection with respect to lack of jurisdiction, cannot be raised at subsequent stage under section 34 of the Act of 1996. (ii) The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of VA Tech Escher Wyass Floverl Limited vs. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board and another, (2011) 13 SCC 261 dated 14-1-2020 was applicable on the date of invoking the arbitration clause under the Act of 1996, which clearly says that the Act of 1983 only applies where there is no arbitration clause, but it stands impliedly repealed by the Act of 1996, where, there is an arbitration clause. The said legal position remained in force until 24-1-2012, when the law laid down in the case VA Tech (supra) was declared per incuriam in the subsequent decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Rural Development Authority vs. L. G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors, (2012) 3 SCC 495. (iii) The large

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        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