Back
2012 (2) Supreme 22
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Asok Kumar Ganguly and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
M.P. Rural Road Development Authority & Anr. — Appellant(s)
versus
M/s. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers & Cont. — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 974 of 2012
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.907/2011)
Decided on : 24-1-2012
Facts of the Case :
The question which falls for consideration in present appeal is whether the provision of Madhya Pradesh Madhyasthan Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 which statutorily provides for the parties to the Works Contract to refer all disputes to the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the Act will continue to operate in view of the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which is a Central Act, subsequently enacted.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that Decision in Va Tech , having been rendered in per incuriam, Could not be accepted as a precedent to decide controversy in instant case. Instantly the latter Act made by Parliament i.e. A.C. Act 1996 clearly showed an intention to the effect that the State Law of Arbitration i.e. the M.P. Act should operate in the State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of certain specified types of arbitrations which are under the M.P. Act 1983. This was clear from Sections 2(4) and 2(5) of A.C. Act 1996. Hence held that there was no substance in the argument of repugnancy .Impugned judgment of High Court based on the reasoning of Va Tech was set aside. In that view of the matter held that arbitration proceeding would proceed under M.P. Act of 1983 and not under A.C. Act 1996.Appeal was allowed.
JUDGMENT
Ganguly, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the provision of Madhya Pradesh Madhyasthan Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter, ‘M.P. Act’) which statutorily provides for the parties to the Works Contract to refer all disputes to the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the Act will continue to operate in view of the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘A.C. Act 1996’) which is a Central Act, subsequently enacted.
3. The facts leading to the aforesaid controversy be noted first.
4. The appellant-Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Anr., impugning the judgment of the High Court dated 8.9.2010 in this appeal, entered into a ‘Works Contract’ with the respondent for construction and maintenance of Rural Road Package No.1958, District Jhabua.
5. Clause 24 of the Contract contains the ‘Dispute Redress Mechanism’ and Clause 24.1 of the same provides as under:
“24.1 If any dispute or difference of any kind what-so-ever shall arise in connection with or arising out of this Contract or the execution of work of maintenance of the Works thereunder, whether before its commencement or during the progress of Works or after the termination, abandonment or breach of the Contract, it shall, in the first instance, be referred for settlement to competent authority, described along with their powers in the Contract Data, above the rank of the Engineer. The competent authority shall, within a period of forty five days after being requested in writing by the Contractor to do so, convey his decision to the Contractor. Such decision in respect of every matter so referred shall, subject to review as hereinafter provided, be final and binding upon the Contract. In case the Works is already in progress, the Contractor shall proceed with the execution of the Works, including maintenance thereof, pending receipt of the decision of the competent authority as aforesaid, with all due diligence.”
6. Under the ‘M.P. Act’ “dispute” has statutorily been defined under Section 2(d):
“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”
7. “Works Contract” has also been defined under Section 2(i) of the M.P. Act:
“2(i) works contract” means an agreement in writing for the execution of any work relating to construction, repair or maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert, factory, workshop, powerhouse, transformers or such other works of the State Government or Public Undertaking as the State Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf at any of its stages, entered into by the State Government or by an official of the State Government or Public Undertaking or its official for and on behalf of such Public Undertaking and includes an agreement for the supply of goods or material and all other matters relating to the execution of any of the said works”
8. “Reference to Tribunal” is statutorily provided under Section 7 of the M.P. Act:
“7. Reference to Tribunal - (1) either party to a works contract shall irrespective of the fact whether the agreement contains an arbitration clause or not, refer in writing the dispute to the Tribunal.
(2) Such reference shall be drawn up in such form as may be prescribed and shall be supported by an affidavit verifying the averments.
(3) The reference shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed.
(4) Every reference shall be accompanied by such documents or other evidence and by such other fees for service or execution of processes as may be prescribed.
(5) On receipt of the reference under sub-section (1), if the Tribunal is satisfied that the reference is a fit case for adjudication, it may admit the reference but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied it may summarily reject the reference
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
