IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 20 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 1013 of 2002 YOGRAJ SAHNI Versus THE STATE OF M.P. & ORS Appearance:

Shri Shravan Kumar Rao - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Piyush Jain Government Advocate for respondents.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal This Civil Revision under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 is directed against the award dated 28/02/2002 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, in Reference Case No. 110/1990, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondents on 22.01.1980 vide agreement No. 52/EE.87-88 for the work of Kishanpur Tank Project in Saussar Tehsil, District Chhindwara. The value of work put to tender was Rs.21.37 lacks and completion period was 12 months excluding rainy season. The petitioner did not complete the work. Extension was granted beyond the time of the contract which expired on 23.05.1989. The respondents did not agree for the escalated rates. The petitioner, therefore, put an end to the contract. The petitioner claimed Rs.4,83,435/- from the respondents. The Executive Engineer has denied the same. The petitioner requested the Superintending Engineer to settle the claims and dispute but the S.E. has failed to give the decision.

3. Petitioner has taken the following ground in revision that the learned Tribunal has exercised jurisdiction not vested by law and passed the award in a very casual manner. All findings of learned Tribunal are perverse. The provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable to proceedings before Arbitrators, insistence of cogent and reliable evidence by the Tribunal goes contrary to the scheme of Arbitration. That compaction was required to be done by the department which required water in huge quantity, the department by laying pipe line on 11.4.1989 committed default yet the Tribunal bailed out the respondent. That the view of the Tribunal was erroneous that the contractor cannot stop work due to non-receipt of payment despite being breach of contract clause. The claim of security deposit has been disallowed on irrelevant consideration. Since the counter-claim was not adjudicated and the State’s claim was not referred to the final authority, the encashment of the bank guarantee is invalid, all the more so when no adjustment was claimed nor the requisite fee paid. The award disallowing the other claims is also otherwise bad in law.

4. Learned counsel of the respondents has opposed the petition and argued that tribunal has rightly exercised jurisdiction vested by law and the finding of learned Tribunal is not perverse. The petitioner failed to mobilize the necessary and required resources to carry out the contract work and, therefore, failed to submit the construction programme which was a major lapse and breach of the contract by the petitioner. The agreement did not provide escalation clause. As such the petitioner was not entitled for the escalation. The contractor has failed to achieve the appropriate progress of work in a stipulated period and hence in the interest of Government time was extended up to 24.05.1990 (Ex. D.6 dated 19.06.1985) but the contractor did not turn up and the balance work was got completed by a debitable agency.

They have filed counter-claim of Rs.44,060.35 against the petitioner by amending the written statement on 05.02.1993. The respondents have pleaded that the entire claim of the petitioner should be dismissed.

5. Following issue is raised for the consideration in this revision.

“Whether the learned Tribunal has exercised jurisdiction not vested by law and passed the award in a very casual manner. All findings of learned Tribunal are perverse ?”

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The tribunal held that it is not necessary to hand over the whole site at one