Concession agreement, not works contract, brought the dispute under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and made section 9 relief maintainable.

A project agreement was construed as a concession arrangement, not a works contract, because its substance showed concession rights, a defined concession period, toll recovery, financing by the concessionaire, escrow arrangements, force majeure, and termination provisions. On that basis, the special regime for works contracts under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 did not apply, and the dispute fell to be governed by the arbitration clause under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The section 9 application for interim relief was therefore maintainable, and the contrary view treating the matter as exclusively within the 1983 Act was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disputed arrangement was a works contract or a concession agreement. (ii) Whether the dispute was governed by the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 or by section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue (i): Whether the disputed arrangement was a works contract or a concession agreement.

Analysis: The agreement was read as a whole, including its clauses on concession rights, concession area, contract period, toll collection, bankability, escrow arrangement, force majeure, and termination. The project structure showed that the concessionaire arranged finance, executed the project, recovered investment through toll, and operated within a concession period, which aligned with the indicia of a concession agreement rather than a mere lump sum works contract. The mere use of contrary terminology in some correspondence did not alter the substance of the arrangement.

Conclusion: The arrangement was held to be a concession agreement and not a works contract.

Issue (ii): Whether the dispute was governed by the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 or by section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: Since the dispute arose from a concession agreement and not a works contract, the special statutory regime for works contracts under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 did not apply. The dispute-resolution clause in the agreement contemplated arbitration under the 1996 Act, and the application under section 9 for interim relief was therefore maintainable. The earlier view rejecting the application on the premise that the matter belonged exclusively to the 1983 Act was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The dispute was held to be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and not by the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was permitted to pursue appropriate proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the lower court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substance of the agreement shows a concession arrangement involving financing, toll recovery, and concession-period rights, the dispute is not a works contract dispute and is not confined to the special statutory regime for works contracts.

---