TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Reference case ruled not maintainable before Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Tribunal, citing Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.</h1> <h3>Kamladitya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, The Engineer-in-Chief Central, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, The Chief Engineer Water Resources Department, Siwan, The Executive Engineer, Saran Canal Division, Bhore, District Gopalganj, Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Father’s name not known to the petitioner, at present Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar And Sri Arun Kumar, Father’s name not known to the petitioner, At present posted as Engineer in Chief (Head Quarters) cum Registering Authority, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.</h3> Kamladitya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, The ... Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the reference case before the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Tribunal.2. Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 versus the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008.3. Judicial propriety and judicial discipline in following Supreme Court decisions.4. Interim protection for the petitioner.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Maintainability of the Reference Case Before the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes TribunalThe petitioner initially moved the Tribunal by filing a petition (Reference Case No. 341 of 2018) on 21.12.2018. However, the Tribunal observed that the reference case was not maintainable based on the Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 3344 of 2018 (State of Bihar & Ors. v. M/S Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd.). The Supreme Court had ruled that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act) applies when there is an arbitration agreement stipulating its applicability, thus excluding the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 (State Act).Issue 2: Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Versus the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008The petitioner argued that the State Arbitral Tribunal is competent to adjudicate disputes arising from the agreement. They cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority & Anr. v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractor, which held that state laws on arbitration could prevail if they have received presidential assent and are not repugnant to the Central Act. The Bihar Act, 2008, however, had not received presidential assent, and Section 8 of the Bihar Act stated that in case of conflict, the Central Act would prevail. Therefore, the Central Act was applicable.Issue 3: Judicial Propriety and Judicial Discipline in Following Supreme Court DecisionsThe court acknowledged the need to follow the Supreme Court's decisions for judicial propriety and discipline. The Supreme Court’s judgment in M/S Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. was considered authoritative, stating that the Central Act applies when an arbitration agreement stipulates its applicability, and the Bihar Act, 2008 does not apply in such cases. The court found no inconsistency between this judgment and the one in Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority, as the latter involved a state act with presidential assent, unlike the Bihar Act.Issue 4: Interim Protection for the PetitionerThe court extended the interim protection granted to the petitioner in earlier orders for eight weeks, allowing the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies under the law without prejudice.Conclusion:The court concluded that the agreement in question, governed by the Standard Bidding Document and Clause-25 of the General Condition of Contract, mandates arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Consequently, the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 does not apply. The court recalled its earlier order directing the petitioner to move the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal and granted the petitioner liberty to seek remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The review petition was allowed, and interim protection was extended to the petitioner for eight weeks.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
