Statutory arbitration tribunals may grant interim relief under Section 17 where the special Act is not inconsistent.

The Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal was held to have power to grant interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, because that provision supplements a special arbitration statute unless inconsistent with it. Since the Gujarat Act contemplated interim adjudicatory powers and barred civil court jurisdiction, the Tribunal remained the proper forum for testing the State's recovery notice and any request for interim protection. The earlier reliance on Gangotri Enterprises was treated as per incuriam to the extent it rested on overruled authority. The dispute was therefore to proceed before the statutory tribunal on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal constituted under the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 had jurisdiction to grant interim relief by applying Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether the contractor's challenge to the State's recovery notice could be entertained as framed.

Analysis: The Gujarat Act provides for compulsory reference of works-contract disputes to the Tribunal, recognises interim awards, and bars civil court jurisdiction. Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to arbitrations in India, including statutory arbitrations, unless inconsistent with the special enactment. The provisions of Section 17, which empower the arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures, were held to supplement and complement the Gujarat Act because the special Act itself contemplated interim adjudicatory powers and there was no inconsistency on the question of interim protection. The Court also held that the earlier view in Gangotri Enterprises, to the extent relied upon, was per incuriam because it rested on Raman Iron Foundry after that position had been overruled by H.M. Kamaluddin Ansari. Accordingly, the proper forum for deciding the legality of the State's recovery action and any interim protection was the Tribunal under the Gujarat Act.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the State's challenge succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was set aside, and the dispute was relegated to the statutory tribunal for adjudication on merits, including any request for interim protection.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special arbitration statute does not exclude interim relief, the general provisions of Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 apply to the statutory tribunal as complementary provisions, and a civil court cannot assume that function in the face of a statutory bar.

---