Special works contract arbitration regime prevails over general arbitration law, including disputes arising after contract termination.

A special statutory arbitration regime under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 was held to govern works contract disputes, including claims arising after termination of the contract, rather than the general regime under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court accepted that the Central Act's saving clause preserves inconsistent special enactments, so the State Act continued to apply for the reference in question. It also clarified that jurisdictional objections taken too late could not defeat proceedings or awards at a later stage, leading to restoration of the award or transfer of proceedings as appropriate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether disputes arising from a works contract, including disputes after termination, fall within the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 or under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (ii) Whether the State Act prevails over the Central Act in view of the saving clause and whether objections to jurisdiction affect the validity of proceedings and awards.

Issue (i): Whether disputes arising from a works contract, including disputes after termination, fall within the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 or under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The definition of dispute under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as wide enough to encompass disputes even after termination of the contract. The earlier view that the State Act stood impliedly repealed was rejected, and the contrary view was accepted. The Court held that the State Act continued to govern such disputes and that the reference could proceed under the State enactment, not under the Central Act.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the State Act and against application of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for these works contract disputes.

Issue (ii): Whether the State Act prevails over the Central Act in view of the saving clause and whether objections to jurisdiction affect the validity of proceedings and awards.

Analysis: The saving clause in the Central Act was held to preserve the operation of inconsistent special enactments. On that basis, the State law was found to prevail for the reference in question and the impugned order quashing State proceedings was set aside. In matters where the objection to jurisdiction had not been taken at the appropriate stage, the award was restored and it was clarified that the jurisdictional challenge could not be sustained at a later stage in those cases.

Conclusion: The State proceedings were upheld in principle, and in the connected matters the impugned orders were set aside with restoration or transfer of proceedings as appropriate.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirmed the primacy of the special State arbitration regime for the covered works contract disputes while also distinguishing cases where jurisdictional objections were untimely or where separate procedural directions were required.

Ratio Decidendi: A special statutory arbitration regime prevails over the general arbitration law to the extent of inconsistency, and disputes under a works contract may continue to be governed by that special enactment even after termination of the contract.

---