1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE/INHERENT JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO.9/2021

RAJ HOMES PVT. LIMITED PETITIONER(s)

VERSUS

BHOPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent(s)

WITH

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.342 OF 2021

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5603 OF 2021

ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO. 16158 OF 2018

O R D E R

This Special Leave Petition is directed against the order

passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at

Jabalpur, in Review Petition No.128 of 2020, rejecting the petition

to review the order dated 15.03.2018, which was passed in

application filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, “The Act of

1996”). It is common case that a Special Leave Petition was carried

against the dismissal of the application under Section 11(6) of the

Act, filed by the petitioner [SLP(C) No.16158 of 2018]. The said

SLP was also dismissed on 13.07.2018.

The reason, why the application was dismissed by the High

Court, was that, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, there is an

enactment, Madhya Pradesh Madhyastam Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983,

which was available to the petitioner, to ventilate petitioner’s

Digitally signed by

JAGDISH KUMAR

Date: 2021.09.08

16:54:10 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

grievance in question. It is again common case that a petition was

filed by the petitioner, seeking redress under the provisions of

said Act. As it turns out, the Tribunal has rejected the petition

on the ground that, the reference sought by the petitioner, was not

maintainable. Two reasons are provided in the order. Firstly, it is

found that there is no dispute involved, as defined in the Act. The

word ‘dispute’, reads as follows:-

“2.(d)

‘dispute’

means

claim

of

ascertained money valued at Rupees 50,000 or

more relating to any difference arising out of

the execution or non-execution of a works

contract or part thereof;”

Secondly, it was found that there was no application filed for

condoning the delay in making the reference. Thus, feeling

remediless in the circumstances, it is that the petitioner filed the

present application, seeking a review of the order passed by the

High Court originally on 15.03.2018 in proceedings under Section

11(6) of the Act of 1996. It is in this, rather strange

circumstances, we are called upon to deal with the issue.

There is another development. The petitioner also filed Review

Petition against the dismissal of the SLP (C) No. 16158 of 2018.

There is an order dated 06.04.2021, which, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta,

learned senior counsel for the petitioner, brings to our notice. He

submits that the order passed is that, the delay in filing the

Review Petition is condoned and notice is issued, and further, it is

ordered to tag the Review Petition with the present Special Leave

Petition.

3

As we have noticed, at the beginning of our order, what is

before us, despite the order passed by the Court, is only Special

Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9 of 2021. However, when we put this

aspect to the learned Advocate General, who appears on behalf of the

respondent, he has expressed lack of any objection to order being

passed in Review Petition as well.

In short, the relief, which is sought by the petitioner, on a

perusal of both the special leave petitions, and what must be sought

in the Review Petition (as we do not have the Review with us), in

the circumstances of this case, is that, the petitioner, being

remediless, an order, appointing an Arbitrator, may be made by

invoking the power under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996.

We may notice the objection of the learned Advocate General.

The learned Advocate General points out, that is a case, where the

petitioner has approache