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

2017 Supreme(MP) 493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(FULL BENCH)
S.K. Seth, Sujoy Paul and J.P. Gupta, JJ.
Viva Highways Ltd. v. M.P. Road Development Corporation
Arbitration Appeal No.14 of 2017 with Arbitration Case No.27 of 2013 and Arbitration Case No.79 of 2016 (Jabalpur); Decided on 5.5.2017

Advocates:
Jai Savla with Akshya Sapre for appellant in A.A. No.14 of 2017; Naman Nagrath with Jubin Prasad for applicant in A.C. No.27 of 2013; Shekhar Sharma for applicant in A.C. No. 79 of 2016; P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General with Amit Seth, Government Advocate for respondents.

Headnote:(1) Precedent -- effect of -- Order of previous Bench of same strength -- is binding on subsequent Bench -- unless earlier judgments are distinguishable -- or there exists any other judgment on same points rendered by more number of Judges -- or there exists judgment of Supreme Court on that point. [Para 44

       (2) Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983(M.P.) -- S.2(1)(i) -- works-contract -- interpretation of definition of works-contract is very wide -- as laid down in AIR 2003 MP13 -- finding drawn in 2014(2) MPLJ 276 that definition does not include detail and design -- such finding is diametrically opposite to interpretation given by previous Benches.

        [Paras 3 & 42 to 46

       (3) Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983(M.P.) -- S.2(1)(i) -- works-contract -- means of and essential ingredients -- works-contract means an agreement -- which must be in writing for execution of any work relating to construction, repair or maintenance of any building or superstructure or other entities mentioned in definition -- other matters relating to execution of any work are also included -- concession agreement or any agreement -- whatever name called is works-contract -- or not will depend whether essential ingredients of works-contract are available in said agreement -- definition is not restrictive and limited connotation.

        [Para 50

       Held : The essential ingredients in the definition of “works contract” are that the agreement must be in writing, it must be for execution of “any work” relating to construction, repair or maintenance of any building, super structure or other entities mentioned in the definition. The words “any work relating to construction, repair or maintenance” are very wide. If activity of construction, repair or maintenance is involved, nature of construction, repair or maintenance is immaterial. If aforesaid essential ingredients of works contract are available in the agreement and in addition thereto certain other elements are added in the agreement which are not included in the definition of “works contract”, it will not take out the agreement outside the purview of works contract. If present agreement is tested on the anvil of aforesaid principle, it will be clear like noon day that the agreement fulfills the said requirement i.e. there exists an agreement in writing for execution of work relating to construction, repair and maintenance of building and other entities. In addition, the Concessionaires can operate the contract. Apart from this, it is noteworthy that the definition of ‘works contract’ is totally silent about the mode and method of payment. It is also silent as to how the work relating to construction, repair or maintenance should be carried out. The definition of ‘works contract’ contains the word “construction”, “repair” and “maintenance”.

        [Paras 49 & 42 to 48

       We are not able to agree with the view taken in Jabalpur Corridor (supra), that definition of works contract has a restrictive meaning and has a limited connotation. The design and finance etc. are also essential parts of construction activity.

       If agreement satisfies the requirement of a ‘works contract’, on the basis of parameters laid down in the definition of ‘works contract’ it can be safely concluded that said agreement is a ‘works contract’.(2014)1 SCC 708 and (2014)7 SCC 1 referred to.

       (4) Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983(M.P.) -- Ss.2(1)(d)(i) 3 and 7 -- dispute under --forum for -- any agreement by whatever name called -- if it falls within meaning and definition of "works contract" -- in such case -- appropriate forum is Tribunal constituted under section 3 of Adhiniyam -- the Benches have committed error in holding that "concession agreement" is not "work contract."

       Held : On the basis of foregoing analysis, it is clear that any agreement by whatever name called, if it falls within the meaning and definition of “works contract” as per Adhiniyam of 1983, it must be treated as a works contract. In that case, the appropriate forum is the Tribunal constituted under section 3 of Adhiniyam of 1983 if differences between the parties are covered under section 2(d) of the Adhiniyam of 1983.

       We are unable to agree within the reasoning given in Ashoka Infraways (supra), for the reasons stated above. In addition, it is well settled that question of jurisdiction goes to very root of the matter and this legal question needs to be examined on the basis of interpretation of enabling provisions. The jurisdiction cannot be assumed by consent of parties. See AIR 1954 SC 340 (Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan). For the aforementioned reasons in, Jabalpur Corridor (supra), and in Ashoka Infraways (supra), the Benches have committed an error in holding that the “concession agreement” is not a “works contract”. Hence, these orders to the said extent are overruled. 2016(2) JLJ 45 and 2014(2) MPLJ 276 overruled.

       (5) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.11 -- principle of res judicata -- applicability of -- SLP dismissed without converting into appeal -- such order does not operate as resjudicata or constructive resjudicata. [Para 53

       (6) Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983(M.P.) -- Ss.7(1),3, 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(i) -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -- S.11(6) -- works-contract -- for resolution of dispute -- jurisdiction and applicability of provisions -- provisions of Adhiniyam of 1983 would be attracted -- jurisdiction vested with Tribunal constituted under section 3 of Adhiniyam of 1983 -- aggrieved parties of works-contract -- whether contains arbitration clause or not in agreement -- parties have to approach before Tribunal -- question of applicability of provisions of Adhiniyam of 1983 in terminated contract or not -- pending for decision before Supreme Court -- hence, left undecided. 2008(1) JLJ 50 and AIR 1954 SC 340 discussed. AIR 1965 SC 1449, (1999)9 SCC 559 and (2001)1 SCC 534 referred to. [Paras 56 to 58, 67, 68 and 82(i) (ii)

       (7) Interpretation of Statutes -- rule of -- interpretation must depend on text and context -- neither can be ignored -- both are important -- best interpretation is -- which makes textual interpretation much contextual -- interpretation without examining context and scheme of statute -- may not subserve purpose of statute.(1987)1 SCC 424, (1977)2 SCC 256 and (2013)3 SCC 489 referred to. [Para 61

       (8) Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (M.P.) -- S.2(1)(d) (as amended) -- reason and nature of amendment in definition of works contract -- amendment is to clarify definition of works contract -- in amended provision -- concession agreement also included -- amendment is clarificatory in nature -- it is retrospectively applicable -- it is applicable to pending and future contracts. [Para 61

       Held : The basic reason for introducing the amendment is to clarify that the definition of works contract will include concession agreement. No new liabilities are fastened on the parties by bringing this amendment.

        [Para 61

       In the present case of substitution of definition, it will be presumed that the amended definition is in force from the date unamended definition came into being. AIR 1969 SC 504, AIR 2004 SC 5100, AIR 1996 SC 2181 and AIR 2014 Kar.120 referred to.

       Constitutional right of the applicants is taken away or altered by the amendment in the definition nor any fresh liability has been created. (2016)9 SCC 720 discussed. AIR 1977 PC 242, AIR 1975 SC 1843, AIR 1994 SC 2623, 1966(1) All ER 524 and 2016(1) MPLJ 48 referred to.

       In view of foregoing analysis, we are constrained to hold that the amendment by Act No.7 of 2017 is clarificatory in nature and is applicable to pending and future contracts.

       (9) Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (M.P.) -- S.2(1)(d) (as amended) -- in amended definition -- word "ascertained" used -- but words "claim of ascertainable money" not used -- words "ascertainable" and "ascertained" have different meaning -- hence, question of claim of and "ascertained" have different meaning -- hence, question of claim of "ascertained money" will arise only -- when such claim interms of money has already "ascertained". [Paras 69 to 72

       (10) Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (M.P.) -- S.2(1)(d) and 7 -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -- Ss.11(6) and 42 -- jurisdiction under -- in absence of claim of ascertained money -- claim not fall within ambit of dispute -- even if concession agreement is works-contract -- remedy before Tribunal under Act of 1983 not available -- parties may pursue their remedy under Act of 1996 -- reference to Tribunal under Act of 1983 can be made only -- when it is in relation of "the dispute". 1988 JLJ 601, 2008(2) JLJ 364(SC) and AIR 1964 Mad.108 referred to.

       [Paras 75 to 81 & 82 (v)

        ¼1½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && dk izHkko && ogh la[;k dh iwoZrj U;k;ihB dk vkns'k && i'pkrorhZ U;k;ihB ij vkc)dj gS && tc rd fd iwoZrj fu.kZ; izHksnuh; && ;k mlh fo"k;&fcUnqvks ij vf/kd la[;k ds U;k;k/kh'kksa }kjk fn;k x;k dksbZ vU; fu.kZ; fo|eku && ;k mlh fo"k;&fcanqvks ij vf/kd la[;k ds U;k;k/kh'kksa }kjk fn;k x;k dksbZ vU; fu.kZ; fo|eku && ;k mlh fo"k;&fcanq ij mPpre U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; fo|eku u gksaA ¼iSjk 44

       ¼2½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼1½¼>½ && dk;Z lafonk && dk fuoZpu && dk;Z lafonk dh ifjHkk"kk vR;f/kd foLr`r gS && tSlk fd , vkb vkj 2003 e-iz- 13 esa vf/kdfFkr gS && 2014¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 276 esa fudkyk x;k fu"d"kZ dh ifjHkk"kk esa foLr`r o.kZu vkSj ifjdYiuk lfEefyr ugh && ,slk fu"d"kZ iwoZrj U;k;kihBksa }kjk fd, x, fuoZpu ds O;klh; :i es izfrdwy gSA ¼iSjk 3 a,oa 42 ls 46

       ¼3½ ek/;LFke vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼1½¼>½ && dk;Z lafonk && ls vfHkizsr vkSj vko';d la?kVd && dk;Z lafonk ls ,d djkj vfHkizsr gS && tks lfUuekZ.k lac/kh fdlh ladeZ ds fu"iknu] fdlh Hkou dh ejEer ;k vuqj{k.k ;k vf/klajpuk ;k mi;qZDr ifjHkk"kk esa mfYyf[kr vU; vfLrROkksa ds fy, fyf[kr esa gksuk pkfg, && fdlh dk;Z ds fu"iknu laca/kh vU; fo"k; Hkh lfEefyr gS && fj;k;r djkj ;k dksbZ djkj && uke tks Hkh dk;Z lafonk gS && ;k bl ij fuHkZj ugh djsxk fd mi;qZDr djkj esa D;k dk;Z lafonk ds vko';d la?kVd miyH; gS && ifjHkk"kk fucZa/kukRed vkSj lhfer vFkZ esa ugha gSA

       

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ^^dk;Z lafonk^^ ds vko';d la?kVd gS fd djkj fyf[kr esa gksuk pkfg,] ;g lfUuekZ.k laca/kh ^^dksbZ ladeZ^^ ds fu"iknu ds fy, gksuk pkfg,] fdlh Hkou dh ejEer ;k vuqj{k.k] vf/klajpuk ;k ifjHkk"kk esa mfYyf[kr vU; vfLrRoksa ds fy, gksuk pkfg,A 'kCn ^^lfUuekZ.k ejEer ;k vuqlj.k ls lacf/kr fdlh ladeZ^^ vR;f/kd foLr`r gSaA ;fn lfUuekZ.k ds fØ;kdyki esa ejEer ;k vuqj{k.k varoZfyr gS] lfUuekZ.k dk izdkj] ejEer ;k vuqj{k.k egRoghu gSA ;fn djkj esa dk;Z lafonk ds mijksDr vko';d la?kVd miyH; gS vkSj buds vfrfjDr djkj esa dfri; vU; ?kVd tksMs+ x, gS tks ^^dk;Z lafonk^^ dh ifjHkk"kk esa lfEefyr ugha gS] ;g djkj dks dk;Z lafonk ds foLrkj dh lhek ls ckgj ugha ys tk,xkA ;fn orZeku djkj dh iwoksZDr fl)kar dh fugkbZ ij tkWp dh tkrh gS] ;g e/;kgdky ds leku Li"V gksxk fd djkj mi;qZDr vis{kk dh iwfrZ djrk gS vFkkZr~ fuekZ.k laca/kh dk;Z fu"iknu ds fy,] Hkou ,oa vU; vfrfjDr fuekZ.k dh ejEer ,ao vuqj{k.k ds fy, djkj fyf[kr esa fo|eku gSA blds vfrfjDr fj;k;rh lafonk dks ifjpkfyr dj ldrk gSA blds vfrfjDr] ;g /;ku nsus ;ksX; gS fd ^dk;Z lafonk^ dh ifjHkk"kk lank; ds izdkj ,ao jhfr ds fo"k; esa iw.kZr;k ekSu gSA ;g bl fo"k; esa Hkh ekSu gS fd lfUuekZ.k laca/kh dk;Z] ejEer ,oa vuqj{k.k fdl izdkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ^dk;Z lafonk^ dh ifjHkk"kk esa 'kCn ^^lfUuekZ.k^^ ^^ejEer^^ vkSj vuqj{k.k varfoZ"V gSA ¼iSjk 49 ,oa 42 ls 48

       ge tcyiqj dSjhMksj ¼iwoksZDr½ esa yh xbZ jk; ls lger gksus ls leFkZ ugha gS fd dk;Z lafonk dh ifjHkk"kk dk fucZ/kukRed vFkZ gS vkSj lhfer vFkZ j[krh gSA fuekZ.k fØ;kdyki ds mnsn'; vkSj vFkZO;oLFkk vkfn Hkh vko';d Hkkx gSA

       ;fn djkj ^dk;Z lafonk^ dh vis{kk dks ^dk;Z lafonk^ dh ifjHkk"kk esa vf/kdfFkr izkpky ds vk/kkj ij iwjk djrk gS] fuf'pr :i ls ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk ldrk gS fd mi;qZDr djkj ^dk;Z lafonk^ gSA¼2014½ 1 ,l lh 708 rFkk ¼2014½ 7 ,l lh lh 1 fufnZ"VA

       ¼4½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼1½¼?k½¼>½] 3 rFkk 7 && mica/k ds v/khu fookn && ds fy, U;k;ky; && dksbZ djkj uke tks Hkh gks && ;fn ;g ^^dk;Z lfoank^^ ds vFkZ vkSj ifjHkk"kk ds Hkhrj vkrk gS && ,sls ekeys esa && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ds v/khu xfBr vf/kdj.k leqfpr U;k;ky; gS && U;k;ihBksa us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa =qfV dh gS fd ^^fj;k;rh djkj^^ dk;Z lafonk^^ ugha gSA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoksZDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij] ;g Li"V gS fd dksbZ djkj uke tks Hkh gks ;fn ;g 1983 ds vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj ^^dk;Z lafonk^^ ds vFkZ vkSj ifjHkk"kk ds Hkhrj vkrk gS] bls dk;Z lafonk ds :i esa ekuk tkuk pkfg,A bl fLFkfr es 1983 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ds v/khu xfBr vf/kdj.k leqfpr U;k;ky; gS ;fn i{kdkjksa ds e/; fHkUurk,W 1983 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼x½ ds v/khu lekfo"V gSA

       ge mi;qZDr dfFkr dkj.kksa ls v'kksdk baÝkost ¼iwokZDr½ esa fn, x, dkj.kksa ls lger gksus esa vleFkZ gSA blds vfrfjDr] ;g lqfUkf'pr ifjfu/kkZfjr gS fd vf/kdkfjrk dk iz'u ekeys dh tM+ rd tkrk gS ,oa bl fof/kd iz'u dk ijh{k.k lkeF;Zdkjh mica/kksa ds fuoZpu ds vk/kkj ij fd, tkus dh vko';drk gS vf/kdkfjrk dh lgefr ds vk/kkj ij /kkj.kk ugha dh tk ldrhA , vkb vkj 1954 ,l lh 340 ¼fdj.k flag fo- peu ikloku½ fufnZ"VA iwoksZDr mfYyf[kr dkj.kksa ls tcyiqj dSjhMksj ¼iwoksZDr½ esa vkSj v'kksd baÝkost¼iwoksZDr½ esa U;k;ihBksa }kjk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus es =qfV dh gS fd ^^fj;k;rh djkj^^ ^^dk;Z lafonk^^ ugha gSA blfy, bl lhek rd ;s vksn'k mYVs tkrs gSA 2016 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 45 rFkk 2014 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 276 mYVs x,A

       ¼5½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 11 && iwoZ U;k; dk fl)kar && dk ykxw gksuk && fo'ks"k btktr ;kfpdk vihy esa ifjofrZr fd, fcuk [kkfjt && ,slk vkns'k iwoZ U;k; ;k vkU;fod iwoZ U;k; ds :i esa ykxw ugha gksrkA ¼iSjk 53

       ¼6½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 7¼1½] 3] 2¼1½ ¼?k½ rFkk 2¼1½¼>½ && ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e 1996 && /kkjk 11¼6½ && dk;Z lafonk && fookn ds lek/kku ds fy, && vf/kdkfjrk vkSj mica/kks dk ykxw gksuk && 1983 ds vf/kfu;e ds mica/k vkdf"kZr gksaxs && vf/kdkfjrk 1983 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ds v/khu xfBr vf/kdj.k esa fufgr gS && dk;Z lafonk ds O;fFkr i{kdkj && djkj esa pkgs ek/;LFke~ dk [kM+ gks ;k u gks && i{kdkjksa dks vf/kdj.k ds le{k tkuk gksrk gS && 1983 ds vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa dk i;Zoflr lafonk ls ykxw gksuk ;k ugha dk iz'u && fu.kZ; ds fy, mPpre U;k;ky; ds le{k yfacr && blfy, vfu.khZr NksM+k x;kA 2008 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 50 rFkk , vkbZ vkj 1954 ,l lh 340 foosfprA , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 1449] ¼1999½ 9 ,l lh lh 559 rFkk ¼2001½A ,l lh lh 534 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 56 ls 58] 67] 68 ,oa 82¼1½¼2½

       ¼7½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && dk fu;e && fuoZpu 'kkL=&okD vkSj lanHkZ ij fuHkZj gksuk pkfg, && dksbZ Hkh NksM+k tk ldrk && lcls vPNk fuoZpu gS && tks ikBh; fuoZpu dks vf/kd izklafxd cuk, && lanHkZ vkSj dkuwu dh ;kstuk dk ijh{k.k fd, fcuk fuoZpu && dkuwu ds mnns'; esa lgk;d gksuk ugh gks ldrkaA ¼1987½ 1 ,l lh lh 424] ¼1977½ 2 ,l lh lh 256 rFkk ¼2013½ 3 ,l lh lh 489 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 61

       ¼8½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼1½¼?k½ ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr½ && dk;Z lafonk dh ifjHkk"kk esa la'kks/ku dk dkj.k ,oa izd`fr&& la'kks/ku Li"Vhdj.kkRed izd`fr dk gS && ;g Hkwry{kh :i ls ykxw gS && ;g yafcr rFkk Hkkoh lafonkvksa dks ykxw gksrk gSA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % la'kks/ku iqu%LFkkfir djus dk ewy dkj.k ;g Li"V djuk gS fd dk;Z lafonk dks ifjHkk"kk esa fj;k;r djkj lfEefyr gksxkA bl la'kks/ku dks ykdj i{kdkjksa ij dksbZ u;s nkf;ROk ugha Mkys x, gSA

       bl ekeys esa ifjHkk"kk dk izfrLFkkiu djuk] ;g mi/kkj.kk dh tk,xh fd la'kksf/kr ifjHkk"kk vla'kksf/kr ifjHkk"kk ds vkus ds fnukad ls izo`Ÿk gSA , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 504] , vkb vkj 2004 ,l lh 5100] , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 2181 rFkk , vkb vkj 2014 dukZ- 120 fufn"VA

       ifjHkk"kk esa la'kks/ku }kjk vkosndx.k ds lafo/kkfud vf/kdkj Nhus ;k ifjofrZr ugha fd, x, gS vkSj u gh dksbZ u;s nkf;Ro l`ftr fd, x, gSA ¼2016½ 9 ,l lh lh 720 foosfprA , vkb vkj 1977 oh lh 242] , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 1843] , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 2623] 1966 ¼1½ vkWy b vkj 524 rFkk 2016¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 48 fufnZ"VA

       iwoksZDr fo'ys"k.k ds n`f"Vdks.k ls] ge ;g vfHkfUk/kkZfjr djus ds fy, etcwj gS fd vf/kfu;e Øekad 7 lu~ 2017 }kjk fd;k x;k la'kks/ku Li"Vhdj.kkRed gS vkSj yafcr rFkk Hkkoh lafonkvksa ls ykxw gSsaAa

       ¼9½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼1½ ¼?k½ ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr½ && la'kksf/kr ifjHkk"kk esa && 'kCn ^vfHkfuf'pr^ iz;qDr & fdarq 'kCn ^^vfHkfu'p; /ku dk nkok^^ iz;qDr ugha && ^^vfHkfu'ps;^^ vkSj ^^vfHkfuf'pr^^ fHkUu vFkZ j[krs gSa && blfy, ^^vfHkfuf'pr /ku^^ ds nkok iz'u dsoy rc mRiUu gksxk && tc ,slk nkok /ku ds fuca/kuksa esa igys gh ^^vfHkfuf'pr^^ gks x;k gksA ¼iSjk 69 ls 72

       ¼10½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼1½¼?k½ rFkk 7 && ek/;LFke vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 && /kkjk 11¼6½ rFkk 42 && mica/kks ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk && vfHkfuf'pr /ku ds nkok ds vHkko esa && nkok fookn dh ifjf/k esa ugh vkrk && ;|fi fj;k;r djkj dk;Z lafonk gS && 1983 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu mipkj vf/kdj.k ds le{k miyH; ugha && i{kdkj 1996 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vius mipkj dk vuqlj.k dj ldrs gS && 1983 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu funsZ'k dsoy rc fd;k tk ldrk gS && tc ;g ^^fookn^^ laca/kh gksA 1988 ts ,y ts 601] 2008¼2½ ts ,y ts 364 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk , vkb vkj 1964 enzkl 108 fufnZ"VA

       

JUDGMENT

Paul, J. -- 1. The order of reference dated 31.1.2017 which has occasioned the constitution of this Full Bench has been passed by a Division Bench in AC No.27/2013 (M/s. ESSEL Infra Projects Ltd. v. State of M.P.).

2. The relevant facts giving rise to the reference are that the aforesaid arbitration case filed under section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘Act of 1996’) was listed before the learned Single Judge wherein it is prayed that an appropriate Arbitrator may be appointed as per the relevant dispute resolution clause in the agreement. During the course of hearing of the said matter before the learned Single Judge, the respondents have raised an objection as to maintainability of the application under section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 on the ground that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (Adhiniyam of 1983) are applicable for the dispute between the parties and; therefore, matter has to be referred to the Tribunal constituted under the Adhiniyam of 1983.

3. During the course of hearing before the learned Single Judge, the parties cited single bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Jabalpur Corridor (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. M.P. Road Development Corporation, [2014(2) MPLJ 276] and judgment of another Single Bench in the case of Mrs. Kamini Malhotra v. State of M.P.,[AIR 2003 M.P.13]. The learned single judge opined that there is a conflict between the aforesaid two decisions and therefore ordered that the matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench.

4. In view of aforesaid order of learned Single Judge, the matter was placed before the Division Bench. Before the Division Bench, it was fairly admitted by the parties that earlier decision in the case of Mrs. Kamini Malhotra (supra), was not brought to the notice of the subsequent bench which decided the case of Jabalpur Corridor (supra),. Before the Division Bench, two Division Bench decisions were placed i.e. in the case of Ashok Infraways Ltd. And another v. State of M.P. and another, [2016(2) JLJ 45, 2016(2) MPLJ 685] and State of M.P. and another v. M/s. K.T. Construction (India) Ltd. and another (A.A. No.5/2009 decided on 27.4.2016). It was argued before the Division Bench that in aforesaid two Division Bench decisions, the judgment in the case of Jabalpur Corridor (supra), has been affirmed and confirmed. Since the Single Bench judgment of Jabalpur Corridor was applied and affirmed in aforesaid two Division Bench judgments, the question of any conflict between Jabalpur Corridor and Mrs. Kamini Malhotra does not arise.

5. The Division Bench during the course of hearing noticed that between the same parties who were involved in Division Bench decision rendered in the case of Ashok Infraways Ltd.(supra), previously Writ Petition No.1122/2015 was filed wherein challenge was made to the order of District Judge, Dewas passed while deciding an application under section 9 of the Act of 1996. The said WP was initially dismissed as not maintainable but subsequently taken up in Review Petition No.191/2015. The Division Bench in said RP passed an order dated 31.7.2015 holding that contract between the parties i.e. Ashoka Infraways Ltd. and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another was in the nature of a “works contract” and; therefore, the provisions of Adhiniyam of 1983 would apply. It was noticed by Division Bench that the aforesaid order passed in writ petition as well as review petition was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) No.22890-22891/2015. The Supreme Court disposed of the aforesaid SLPs by quoting findings recorded by Division Bench of this Court to the effect that the dispute between the parties pertains to a works contract and shall be referred to the Tribunal under the provisions of Adhiniyam, 1983. Thereafter, takin







































































































































































































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