##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10672

1 CR-175-2009

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 5 OF FEBRUARY, 2026

CIVIL REVISION No. 175 of 2009

MANAGING DIRECTOR

Versus

ANIL KUMAR SHIVHARE AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Hare Krishna Upadhyaya - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Navneesh Jauhari - Advocate for respondent (s).

ORDER

Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal

1. This Civil Revision, filed under Section 19 of the Madhya

Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, is directed against the

award dated 13.02.2009 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal,

Bhopal, in Reference Case No. 19/2005, whereby the appellant was directed

to pay a sum of Rs.35,96,314/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 6.5%

per annum from 15.11.2001.

2. The petitioner/Nigam floated a tender for construction of Dastkari

Haat at Gwalior Trade Fair Complex, Gwalior, which was initially awarded

to M/s Plant Builders, Gwalior. After execution of part of the work, the said

contractor abandoned the project. Thereafter, respondent No.1 offered to

complete the remaining work on the same tender rates and terms.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PRAVEEN

Signing time:

2/6/2026 6:34:17 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10672

2 CR-175-2009

Accordingly, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and

respondent No.1 on 23.10.1996 and a work order was issued on 24.10.1996,

stipulating completion of the work, including handing over of at least 50

shops, by 15.12.1996.

3. The respondent No.1 commenced the work but failed to complete

it within the stipulated time. Disputes arose about payment of the running

account bills. The respondent No.1 submitted the 5th, 6th and 7th running

account bills and claimed that an amount of Rs. 35,65,366/- remained

outstanding after adjustment of payments made. Correspondence was

exchanged between the parties, and the respondent No.1 treated the 7th

running account bill as the final bill.

4. Earlier, the respondent No.1 had filed a civil suit, which came to

be dismissed for want of prosecution on 15.03.1999. Subsequently, a notice

under Section 80 of the CPC was issued on 26.12.2000. Thereafter, the

respondent No.1 raised a dispute before the authority under Clause 29 of the

agreement and ultimately filed a reference petition before the Madhya

Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, which was registered as Reference Case

No.19/2005. The petitioner raised an objection regarding limitation under

Section 7-B of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam,

1983.

5. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned

Arbitration Tribunal allowed the claim of respondent No.1 in its entirety and

passed the impugned award dated 13.02.2009, directing payment of the

claimed amount with interest.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PRAVEEN

Signing time:

2/6/2026 6:34:17 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10672

3 CR-175-2009

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned

award passed by the Arbitration Tribunal is ex facie illegal and

unsustainable, as the reference petition filed by respondent No.1 was clearly

barred by limitation. It was contended that the Tribunal committed a grave

error of law in entertaining a time-barred reference petition and thereby

exercised jurisdiction not vested in it under the Madhya Pradesh

Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.

7. It was argued that the cause of action, if any, arose on 22.02.1998

when the pre-final measurements were recorded and accepted by respondent

No.1. However, the respondent approached the Final Authority only on

08.08.2001 and thereafter filed the reference petition after an inordinate

delay of nearly nine years, which was patently beyond the permissible period

of limitation. Even the claim before the Final Authority was barred by

several months. Despite specific objection raised under Section 7-B of the

Adhiniyam of 1983, the Tribunal failed to consider the issue of limitation in

its proper perspective.

8. Le