MP 'Works Contract' Disputes Must Go to State Tribunal, Not Private Arbitration, Despite Contract Clause: Supreme Court - 2025-07-31

MP State Tribunal Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over 'Works Contracts,' Overriding Private Arbitration Clauses: Supreme Court

New Delhi – The Supreme Court has unequivocally affirmed that all disputes arising from 'works contracts' involving the State of Madhya Pradesh or its entities must be adjudicated exclusively by the statutory M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, irrespective of any private arbitration clause in the agreement. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that the special state law, the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, overrides the general provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in such matters.

The Court dismissed an appeal by Umri Pooph Pratappur (UPP) Tollways Pvt. Ltd., upholding a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that quashed private arbitration proceedings initiated by the company against the M.P. Road Development Corporation (MPRDC).

---

Brief Overview of the Case

The dispute originated from a 2012 Concession Agreement between UPP Tollways and MPRDC for the development of the Umri–Pooph–Pratappur Road on a BOT basis. When disputes arose, UPP Tollways initially approached the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal in 2018. However, in 2022, citing a clause in their agreement, the company invoked private arbitration under the 1996 Act through the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR).

MPRDC challenged this move in the High Court, arguing that the 1983 State Act provides an exclusive statutory forum for such 'works contracts'. The High Court agreed and quashed the ICADR proceedings, leading UPP Tollways to appeal to the Supreme Court.

---

Key Arguments Presented

UPP Tollways (Appellant) contended that: - The writ petition filed by a state entity against a private company was not maintainable. - The Concession Agreement explicitly mandated arbitration under the 1996 Act. - The company was forced to withdraw from the state tribunal due to inordinate delays and had only 'ascertainable' claims, which it argued were outside the tribunal's scope.

MPRDC (Respondent) , represented by the Solicitor General, countered that: - The agreement was a 'works contract' under the 1983 Act, a special statute creating a mandatory and exclusive dispute resolution forum. - Parties cannot contractually override a statutory mandate. - UPP Tollways was "forum shopping" after facing a limitation bar in the state tribunal.

---

Court's Rationale and Legal Precedents

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the statutory framework and precedent to arrive at its decision.

1. On the Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The bench held that the writ petition was maintainable. Since MPRDC is a state-owned entity and the road project is a public function, the dispute involved a "public law element." The Court cited Binny Ltd v. Sadasivan to clarify that a writ can be issued against a private body when its actions are connected to a public duty.

2. Exclusive Jurisdiction of the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal: The core of the judgment rested on the overriding nature of the 1983 State Act. The Court emphasized that Section 7 of the Act mandates that any dispute arising from a 'works contract' must be referred to the state tribunal, "irrespective of the fact whether the agreement contains an arbitration clause or not."

The Court relied on a series of its own judgments, including the three-judge bench decision in M.P. Rural Road Development Authority v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers & Contractors , which had already settled that the 1983 Act prevails over the 1996 Act for works contracts in Madhya Pradesh.

The judgment quoted from L.G. Chaudhary :

"This Court holds the decision in VA Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. M.P. SEB has been rendered in per incuriam. In that view of the matter the arbitration proceeding may proceed under the M.P. Act of 1983 and not under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument about "ascertained" vs. "ascertainable" claims, noting that the legislative amendment to the 1983 Act now includes all monetary claims, and that its claims of ₹280.15 crore were clearly quantified.

3. Parties Cannot Contract Out of a Statute: The bench reiterated the established legal principle that private agreements cannot nullify a statutory provision. Citing Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd , the Court stated that legislatures can reserve certain disputes for public fora as a matter of public policy. Clause 44.3.1 of the Concession Agreement, which provided for private arbitration, was deemed inoperative in the face of the 1983 Act's mandate.

---

Final Decision and Implications

The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal. It ruled that the private arbitration proceedings initiated by UPP Tollways were "non est in law."

However, taking note of the submission by the Solicitor General and to ensure justice, the Court provided the appellant a window of opportunity. It directed UPP Tollways to file an application within two weeks to recall its withdrawal order from the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal and seek restoration of its original case (Reference Petition No. 61 of 2018).

The Tribunal was directed to consider this restoration application on its merits and, if allowed, to decide the case within four months. This decision strongly reinforces the authority of special state statutes in creating exclusive dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly in public works contracts, and serves as a firm caution against "forum shopping" by litigants.