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>Appeal Dismissed: Contract Deemed 'Works Contract' Under 1983 Act, Directing Dispute to Arbitration Tribunal.</h1> <h3>Kamini Malhotra Versus State of M.P. and Ors.</h3> The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the contract constituted a 'Works Contract' under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, thus ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is barred in the context of a 'Works Contract' as defined under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.2. Whether the contract between the parties constitutes a 'Works Contract' under the Adhiniyam.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court:The primary issue revolves around whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the context of a 'Works Contract' as defined under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. The appellant contested that the Civil Court was competent to decide the application under Section 9 of the Act, arguing that the provisions of the Adhiniyam were not applicable. However, the respondents contended that the contract in question was a 'Works Contract' and thus fell under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Tribunal as per Sections 7 and 20 of the Adhiniyam. The trial court upheld the respondents' objection, ruling that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was indeed barred for such disputes, which are to be referred to the tribunal.2. Definition of 'Works Contract':The second issue concerns whether the contract between the parties qualifies as a 'Works Contract' under the Adhiniyam. The appellant argued that the contract did not fall within the definition of 'Works Contract', asserting that the lower court misconstrued the term. The appellant relied on legal precedents to suggest that the definition of 'Works Contract' should be strictly interpreted as per Section 2(i) of the Adhiniyam, which defines it as an agreement for the execution of specified works. The appellant emphasized that the definition is a 'hard and fast' one, excluding works not explicitly mentioned.Conversely, the respondents maintained that the Water Treatment Plant project involved construction of buildings and tanks, which fit within the definition of 'Works Contract'. They argued that the term 'any' in the definition indicates a broad scope, encompassing all works related to construction, repair, or maintenance of buildings or superstructures. The respondents supported their position with photographs and documents illustrating the nature of the construction work involved.The court found the respondents' interpretation persuasive, noting that the definition of 'Works Contract' under Section 2(i) of the Adhiniyam is intended to have a wide application, covering all construction-related works. The court concluded that the Water Treatment Plant project, involving substantial construction of buildings and storage tanks, fell within the ambit of 'Works Contract'.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the contract in question was indeed a 'Works Contract', thereby barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the provisions of the Adhiniyam. The dispute was deemed referable to the Arbitration Tribunal, and the trial court's decision to return the application for presentation to the appropriate forum was upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
