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 12 OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 235 of 2003 M/S TRADE LINK THROUGH PARTNER Versus M.P. HOUSING BOARD & ORS Appearance:

Shri Munish Saini and Shri Rajendra Puranik - Advocate for petitioner.

None for respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal The present under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 has been preferred by the applicants/ petitioner against the award dated 15.11.2002 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in Reference Case No.75 of 1999, whereby the claim of the petitioner–contractor was rejected on the ground of limitation.

2. 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 learned Tribunal has exercised jurisdiction illegally inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has ignored the documentary as well oral evidence and finding given is wholly perverse. Finding is also perverse to the effect that the petition is time barred.

3. Learned counsel for respondent argued that the reference case filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation under Section 7-B of the 1983 Act.

Tribunal has rightly dismissed it as time barred.

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

"Whether the tribunal has wrongly considered the issue of the limitation of filing reference as the reference was time barred ?"

5. It is profitable to reproduce the provision of 7 of the Madhyastham Adhikaran (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1990.

7-A. Reference Petition.—(1) Every reference petition shall include whole of the claim which the party is entitled to make in respect of the works contract till the filing of the reference petition but no claims arising out of any other works contract shall be joined in such a reference petition.

(2) Where a party omits to refer or intentionally relinquishes any claim or any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards be entitled to refer in respect of such claim or portion of claim so omitted or relinquished.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or subsection (2) disputes relating to works contract which may arise after filing of the reference petition may be entertained as and when they arise, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.

7-B. Limitation-

(1) The Tribunal shall not admit a reference petition unless—

(a) The dispute is first referred for the decision of the final authority under the terms of the works contract; and (b) The petition to the Tribunal is made within one year from the date of communication of the decision of the final authority:

Provided that if the final authority fails to decide the disputes within a period of six months from the date of reference to it, the petition to the Tribunal shall be made within one year of the expiry of the said period of six months.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where no proceeding has been commenced at all before any Court preceding the date of commencement of this Act or after such commencement but before the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1990, a reference petition shall be entertained within one year of the date of commencement of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1990 irrespective of the fact whether a decision has or has not been made by the final authority under the agreement.

(2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Tribunal shall not admit a reference petition unless it is made within three years from the date on which the works contract is terminated, foreclosed, abandoned or comes to an end in any other manner or when a dispute arises during the pendency of the works contract:

Provided that if a reference petition is filed by the State G