Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. vs M/S Jado Singh Thakur (Dead) Contractor ... on 12 April, 2016
1
RP.410/2015
State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s Jado Singh Thakur
12/04/2016
Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Govt.
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the
respondent.
With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard.
This review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 06.04.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 284/2005 by which the revision preferred by the respondent under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter refereed as "1983 Act") has been disposed of with liberty to the parties to take recourse to the remedy provided under the provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred as "1996 Act").
The facts giving rise to filing of this review petition briefly stated are that the petitioners have invited tender for construction of Chute wall at R.D. 330 Meter of spill channel of Sanjay Sagar Project Raghogarh of District Guna. The bid of respondent being the lowest was accepted and agreement was executed on 17.10.1990 between the parties. Respondent did not complete the work, thereupon, the contract was rescinded by the petitioner. The respondent approached the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal under the 1983 Act by filing a petition under Section 7 of the 1983 Act. The Tribunal passed an award dated 21.09.2005 which was assailed by the 2 RP.410/2015 State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s Jado Singh Thakur respondent in civil revision under Section 19 of the 1983 Act. The aforesaid revision was disposed of by the Division Bench of this court in the light of order dated 14.01.2010 rendered by the Supreme Court in V.A. Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. Vs. M.P. S.E. Board and Another (Civil Revision No. 3746/2005) and parties were granted liberty to approach the forum under the 1996 Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contract in question is a works contract and the same falls within the purview of section 2(i) of the 1983 Act. It is further submitted that in view of Section 7 of the 1983 Act the parties were under an obligation to approach the Arbitration Tribunal and respondent accordingly approached the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Act. Lastly, it is urged that decision rendered in the case of V.A. Tech (supra) is no longer good law in view of subsequent decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Anr. Vs. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractor reported in (2012) 3 SCC 495; wherein the Supreme Court has held that dispute in respect of works contract has to be adjudicated by the Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Act.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioners are participating the proceedings pending under the 1996 Act before the Arbitrator and there is no power of review under the 1983 Act. In 3 RP.410/2015 State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s Jado Singh Thakur support of this submission, learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on decision of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of ( S.B.P. & Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Limited and Anr.) reported in 2006 (1) M.P.H.T. 61 (SC) and submitted that objection ( if any) with regard to jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is to be raised by the petitioner before the Arbitrator.
We have considered the submissions made at the bar. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.04.2010 by placing reliance on V.A. Tech (supra) held that provision of 1983 Act are treated to be impliedly overruled on enactment of 1996 Act and therefore, the award passed by Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Act has been rendered infructuous. Accordingly, revision was disposed of with liberty to the parties to take recourse to the remedy provided under the 1996 Act . It is pertinent to mention here that the decision of the Supreme Court in V.A. Tech (supra) has been held to be per incurium by the Supreme Court in the case of L.G. Chaudhary (supra) and it has been held that in works contract the dispute between the parties has to be adjudicated by the Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Act. Admittedly, the contract in question is a works contract which falls within the definition of Section 2(i) of the 1983 Act.
In view of enunciation of law laid down by 4 RP.410/2015 State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s Jado Singh Thakur the Supreme Court in L.G. Chaudhary (supra) the order dated 06.04.2010 passed in Civil Revision No. 284/2005 is hereby recalled. In the result Civil Revision No. 284/2005 ( Jado Singh Thakur Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) is restored to file.
Accordingly, the review petition is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) (Vivek Agarwal)
Judge Judge
sarathe