Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hindustan Steel Works Construction ... vs Secretary The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 January, 2012
1
Arbitration Case No. 109 / 2010
13.1.2012:
Shri V.R. Rao, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri S. Rao, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the non- applicant.
This application has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking constitution of an Arbitration Tribunal for resolution of dispute between the parties.
A contract was awarded to the petitioner for certain work in connection with Bhopal-Sehore bye-pass road including widening and strengthening of existing road and construction of railway over bridge. In the agreement in question clause 29 contemplated an arbitration clause, under this clause a detailed procedure was contemplated and it was held that the arbitration shall be in accordance to Arbitration Act of 1996. When certain dispute arose with regard to resolution of agreement petitioner raised a dispute by seeking reference before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal under the Madhyastam Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 and the Arbitration Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the tribunal had no jurisdiction, the order passed by the tribunal is Annexure A-1 dated 7.6.2010 and it would be seen that the tribunal found that in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court 2 in the case of V.A. Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. vs. M.P.S.E. Board and Another 2010 Arb. W.L.J. 116 the petitioner has to take recourse of the remedy available under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not under the Madhyastam Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. Even though subsequently the Supreme Court in the case of Ravikant Bansal vs. M.P. Road Development Corporation S.L.P. Civil No.18867/2011 decided on 29.7.2011 has laid down the principle that if the agreement specifically stipulating that the arbitration shall be under M.P. Arbitration Tribunal Act 1983 then the Arbitration Tribunal will have jurisdiction. If arbitration clause in the present case is taken note of the same is not with regard to conferring jurisdiction on the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal but it is about resolution of dispute by an Arbitration Board and thereafter arbitration in accordance to Arbitration Act of 1940. Accordingly, the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the present case and this application under Section 11 is maintainable, it is now for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 11 and constitute an Arbitration Tribunal.
As the dispute involved in this case is technical in nature it is thought appropriate to appoint a retired technical Engineer as proposed by Shri V.R. Rao, learned Senior Counsel and finding no error in doing so Shri P. Sampal, Engineer-in-Chief (Retd.) stationed at Kolar Road, 3 Arera Colony Bhopal is appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Hon'ble Arbitrator and the Hon'ble Arbitrator is requested to proceed in the matter.
With the aforesaid, the application is allowed and disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-