2018 (3) TMI 2044

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7/2017, SLP (C) No. 30773/2017, SLP (C) No. 23107/2017, SLP (C) No. 7407/2017, SLP (C) No. 5076/2017, SLP (C) No. 20744/2017, SLP (C) No. 17070/2017, SLP (C) No. 18212/ 2017, SLP (C) No. 25319/2017, SLP (C) No. 25321/2017, SLP (C) No. 21434/2017, Dairy No. 23682/2017, Dairy No. 23685/2017, Civil Appeal No. 11383/2017 and SLP (C) Nos. 1635-1637/2018, SLP (C) Nos. 1631-1633/2018 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ. For Parties : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rahul Narayan, Adv., Mr. Shashwant Goel, Adv., Mr. Anand Kumar Sethi, Adv., Ms. Vibha D. Makhija, Sr. Adv., Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR, Mr. D.S. Parmar, Adv., Mr. Naman Nagrath, Sr. Adv., Mr. Aman Pandey, Adv., Mr. Harsh Parashar, AOR, Mr. Varun Amar, Adv., Mr. Naman Nagrath, Sr. Adv., Mr. Jay Savla, AOR, Ms. Renuka Sahu, Adv., Mr. Prabhat Chaurasia, Adv., Mr. Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Adv., Mr. Brajesh Pandey, Adv., Mr. Vasu B., Adv., Ms. Spiti Sarkar, Adv., Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR, Mr. Tripura Ray, Adv., Mr. B.S. Billowria, Adv., Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Vishnu Sharma, AOR, Mr. Atul Jha, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iliation Act, 1996 could not be entertained. The High Court, however, overruled the said objection relying upon the judgment of this Court in Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board and Anr. (2011) 13 SCC 261. When the matter was considered by a Bench of this Court on 24th January, 2012 (order reported in Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Anr. v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors (2012) 3 SCC 495), this Court held that the judgment in Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. (supra) was per incuriam insofar as it held that the M.P. Act stands implied repealed by the Central Act. While Hon'ble Ganguly J., held that the State Act will cover a dispute even after termination of the 'works contract', Hon'ble Gyan Sudha Mishra J. took a different view as follows: 51. It is no doubt true that if the matter were before an Arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for adjudication of any dispute including the question regarding the justification and legality as to whether the cancellation of works contract was legal or illegal, then the said Arbitrator in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iew of the matter the arbitration proceeding may proceed under M.P. Act of 1983 and not under the A.C. Act 1996. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. C.A. No. 2615 of 2018 @ SLP (C) No. 16889/2012: Leave granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Proceedings under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (the State Act) were pending before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal at Bhopal. The Respondent raised an objection that in view Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board and Anr. 2011 (13) SCC 261, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1966 Act will apply and the State Act will not apply. This objection was rejected. The Respondent preferred a writ petition. The High Court has upheld the objection and quashed the proceedings under the State Act. Learned Counsel for the State has drawn our attention to Section 2(4) of the Central Act which is as follows: This part except Sub-section (1) of Section 40, Sections 41 and 43 shall apply to every arbitration under any other enactment for the time being in force, as if the arbitration were pursuant to an arbitration agreement and as if that other enactment were an arbitration agreement, except in so....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tor and the legality of the award would be subject to decision by the court Under Section 33. In view of above, we are of the view that the State law will prevail in terms of Section 2(4) of the Central Act. The reference under the State law was valid and could be decided in accordance with the State. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the proceedings before the Tribunal. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in above terms. C.A. No. 2751 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 11615/2012, C.A. No. 2753 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 11617/2012, C.A. No. 2754 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 11618/2012, C.A. No. 2755 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 11619/2012, C.A. Nos. 2756-2757 of 2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 11633-11634/2012, C.A. Nos. 2758-2759 of 2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 11631-11632/2012 & C.A. Nos. 2760-2761 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 11628-11629/2012: Leave granted. In view of order passed in Civil Appeal No. 2615 of 2018 (@ SLP(C) No. 16889 of 2012), the impugned order is set aside and the application(s) filed by the Respondent(s) Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 are dismissed. However, since it is stated that proceedings are pending before the Arbitrator in pursuance of the im....