Clarification on Works Contracts under M.P. Adhiniyam: Tribunal Jurisdiction and Scope Expansion

The Full Bench clarified that agreements falling within the definition of "works contract" under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 must be referred to the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, specifically for disputes involving claims of ascertained money. The Court overruled previous judgments excluding concession agreements from this definition, emphasizing the broad scope of works contracts encompassing construction, repair, or maintenance agreements. The amended definition was held to have retrospective effect, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to disputes with quantified claims, excluding matters like additional operational days.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Definition and scope of "works contract" under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.
2. Applicability of the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal for disputes under the Adhiniyam despite arbitration clauses in agreements.
3. Validity and interpretation of conflicting judgments regarding "works contract."
4. Retrospective application of the amended definition of "works contract."
5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Adhiniyam to decide disputes involving claims of ascertained money.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition and Scope of "Works Contract":
The Full Bench examined whether agreements, including concession agreements, fall within the definition of "works contract" under Section 2(i) of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. It was concluded that the definition is broad and includes any agreement in writing for the execution of construction, repair, or maintenance work. The Court overruled the judgments in Jabalpur Corridor and Ashoka Infraways, which had previously held that concession agreements do not fall within this definition. The Full Bench emphasized that the nomenclature of the agreement is irrelevant; what matters are the essential ingredients of a works contract, which include written agreements for construction, repair, or maintenance.

2. Applicability of the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal:
Section 7 of the Adhiniyam mandates that disputes under works contracts must be referred to the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, regardless of whether the agreement contains an arbitration clause. This statutory requirement overrides any contrary dispute resolution mechanisms stipulated in the agreement. The Full Bench referenced the Full Bench decision in Shri Shankarnarayan Construction Co. v. State of M.P., which upheld the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Adhiniyam for works contracts.

3. Conflicting Judgments on "Works Contract":
The Full Bench addressed the conflict between the judgments in Kamini Malhotra, Technogem, D.D. Sharma, and Jabalpur Corridor. It was noted that the earlier judgments (Kamini Malhotra, Technogem, and D.D. Sharma) had interpreted the definition of "works contract" broadly, while Jabalpur Corridor had taken a restrictive view. The Full Bench aligned with the broader interpretation, emphasizing that the definition of "works contract" is wide and inclusive of various construction-related activities.

4. Retrospective Application of Amended Definition:
The Court examined whether the amended definition of "works contract" under Act No. 7 of 2017, which included concession agreements, should apply retrospectively. It concluded that the amendment is clarificatory in nature and thus has retrospective effect. This interpretation was supported by the "Statement of Objects and Reasons" for the amendment, which aimed to clarify the inclusion of concession agreements within the definition of "works contract."

5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal for Claims of Ascertained Money:
The Full Bench clarified that the Tribunal under the Adhiniyam has jurisdiction only for disputes involving claims of ascertained money. The definition of "dispute" under Section 2(d) was interpreted to mean claims that are quantified and determined. If a dispute involves claims that are not ascertained in terms of money, such as claims for additional days of operation, it falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Consequently, parties in such cases may seek resolution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench concluded that any agreement falling within the definition of "works contract" as per the Adhiniyam must be referred to the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, provided the dispute involves claims of ascertained money. The judgments in Jabalpur Corridor and Ashoka Infraways were overruled. The amended definition of "works contract" was deemed retrospective, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to disputes involving ascertained monetary claims.

---