https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458183 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 On that construction, the 1983 Adhiniyam was not repugnant to, or impliedly repealed by, the 1996 Act, and the special State scheme for works-contract disputes continued to operate; a petition under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act was therefore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. en-us Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458183 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 On that construction, the 1983 Adhiniyam was not repugnant to, or impliedly repealed by, the 1996 Act, and the special State scheme for works-contract disputes continued to operate; a petition under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act was therefore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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458183