Arbitration clause in works contract brings Section 9 relief under the 1996 Act; conflicting earlier special law yields.

A works contract dispute containing an arbitration clause was held to fall under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, rather than the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. The Court applied harmonious construction and held that the 1983 enactment operated only where no arbitration clause existed; to the extent it conflicted with the later arbitration regime, it stood impliedly repealed. The Section 9 application was therefore maintainable, and the refusal to entertain it was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable in a works contract dispute governed by Section 7(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, where the agreement contained an arbitration clause.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was read harmoniously by giving effect to the 1983 Adhiniyam only in cases where no arbitration clause existed, while recognising that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs disputes where the agreement contains such a clause. On that construction, the 1983 enactment stood impliedly repealed to the extent it conflicted with the later Act in arbitration-clause cases, and the remedy under Section 9 of the 1996 Act remained available.

Conclusion: The application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable and the contrary view was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The connected appeals succeeded, and the refusal to entertain the Section 9 application was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A later arbitration statute will prevail, by harmonious construction and implied repeal to the extent of conflict, where a works contract contains an arbitration clause and the earlier special law is inconsistent with that statutory regime.

---