Works contract classification excludes civil court jurisdiction for Section 9 relief in disputes covered by the special tribunal law

A contract for construction and commissioning of a water treatment plant fell within the statutory definition of a works contract under the M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, because its essential character was construction of buildings, tanks and reservoirs, with ancillary equipment not changing that nature. As the dispute was therefore referable to the statutory arbitration tribunal, Sections 7 and 20 barred civil court jurisdiction, and an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not maintainable before the civil court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contract for construction and commissioning of a water treatment plant was a "works contract" within Section 2(i) of the M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. (ii) Whether, in view of Sections 7 and 20 of the Adhiniyam, the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue (i): Whether the contract for construction and commissioning of a water treatment plant was a "works contract" within Section 2(i) of the M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.

Analysis: The definition of "works contract" used the expression "means", indicating a confined and exhaustive definition. At the same time, the text of the provision covered agreements for execution of work relating to construction of buildings, superstructures, tanks and other specified works, and the word "any" signified a wide amplitude. On the facts, the essential character of the work was construction of buildings, tanks and reservoirs, with ancillary equipment not altering that basic nature.

Conclusion: The contract was a works contract and the finding to that effect was correct.

Issue (ii): Whether, in view of Sections 7 and 20 of the Adhiniyam, the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: Section 9 applies to disputes referable to arbitration. Once the contract fell within the statutory definition of works contract, the dispute became referable to the arbitration tribunal under the Adhiniyam, and Section 20 barred civil court jurisdiction in respect of disputes cognizable by the tribunal. The application under Section 9 therefore could not be entertained by the civil court.

Conclusion: The civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Section 9 application.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the underlying contract was treated as a works contract and the dispute lay before the statutory tribunal, not the civil court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract is covered by the statutory definition of works contract under the special enactment, the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded and an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable before it.

---