Statutory arbitration in works-contract disputes survives the 1996 Act; Section 11(6) appointment was not maintainable.

The Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 was treated as a statute providing for statutory arbitration in works-contract disputes, because disputes could be referred to the Tribunal even without an arbitration agreement. Section 2(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was read as applying to such statutory arbitrations, while Section 2(5) was construed as preserving other laws in force governing arbitrations under agreements. On that construction, the 1983 Adhiniyam was not repugnant to, or impliedly repealed by, the 1996 Act, and the special State scheme for works-contract disputes continued to operate; a petition under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 stood repugnant to or impliedly repealed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether a petition under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act was maintainable for disputes arising out of the works contract.

Analysis: The provisions of Section 2(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were held to apply to statutory arbitrations under other enactments, and the Madhya Pradesh enactment was treated as a statute providing for statutory arbitration because disputes may be referred to the Tribunal even without an arbitration agreement. Section 2(5) of the 1996 Act was construed as saving other laws in force governing arbitrations pursuant to agreements, while Article 254 of the Constitution of India was read to permit Parliament to enact a later law in the same field and also to preserve a State law to the extent expressly saved. On that construction, the 1983 Adhiniyam was found not to be repugnant to the 1996 Act, and the special statutory scheme governing works-contract disputes continued to operate.

Conclusion: The 1983 Adhiniyam was held to survive and remain operative, the request for appointment of an arbitral tribunal under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act was not maintainable, and the challenge to the statutory scheme failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later arbitration statute expressly saves statutory arbitrations and other laws in force, a special State enactment providing for dispute resolution by an arbitration tribunal in works-contract matters is not impliedly repealed and continues to govern those disputes to the extent of such statutory saving.

---