Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mp Housing And Infrastructure ... vs M/S Udit Construction And Company B ... on 17 April, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29996
1 AR-98-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 17th OF APRIL, 2026
ARBITRATION REVISION No. 98 of 2023
MP HOUSING AND INFRSTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Versus
RAJKUMAR SINGH RAJPUT
Appearance:
Shri Gautam Kourav, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Piyush Bhatnagar and Shri Siddharth Kumar Sharma, Advocates
for respondent.
WITH
ARBITRATION REVISION No. 63 of 2023
MP HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Versus
M/S UDIT CONSTRUCTION AND COMPANY B CLASS
CONTRACTOR
Appearance:
Shri Gautam Kourav, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Piyush Bhatnagar and Shri Siddharth Kumar Sharma, Advocates for
respondent.
ARBITRATION REVISION No. 65 of 2023
M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD
THROUGH ITS DEPUTY HOUSING COMMISSIONER
Versus
UMAKANT TIWARI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 20-04-2026
11:15:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29996
2 AR-98-2023
Appearance:
Shri Gautam Kourav, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Piyush Bhatnagar and Shri Siddharth Kumar Sharma, Advocates for
respondent
ARBITRATION REVISION No. 66 of 2023
M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD
THROUGH ITS DEPUTY HOUSING COMMISSIONER
Versus
M/S SAI CONSTRUCTION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR ANJU
MISHRA
Appearance:
Shri Gautam Kourav, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Piyush Bhatnagar and Shri Siddharth Kumar Sharma, Advocates for
respondent
ARBITRATION REVISION No. 67 of 2023
M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Versus
M/S UDIT CONSTRUCTION AND COMPANY B CLASS
CONTRACTOR
Appearance:
Shri Gautam Kourav, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Piyush Bhatnagar and Shri Siddharth Kumar Sharma, Advocates for
respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal The petitioners have filed these revision petitions against the awards dated 13.07.2023 passed in Reference Case Nos. 31 of 2020, 32 of 2020, 33 of 2020, and 34 of 2020, and the award dated 23.08.2023 passed in Reference Case No. 30 of 2020 by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, whereby the petitions were dismissed on the ground that they had been filed Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 20-04-2026 11:15:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29996 3 AR-98-2023 directly before the Tribunal without first resorting to the internal dispute resolution mechanism as provided under Clause 29 of the contract.
2. Since the issue involved in all these revision petitions is identical, they are being decided and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, references to annexures and documents have been taken from A.R. No. 98 of 2023.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid reference petitions under Section 7 read with Section 17-A of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 were filed claiming a sum of Rs. 41,17,649/- from the respondent. It is stated that, in execution of the works contract, a building was constructed by the respondent, for which an amount of Rs. 39,54,675/- was paid. However, the building collapsed on account of patent deficiencies in construction.
4. It is further stated that an amount of Rs. 71,000/- (approx.) was incurred towards test fees, including pathway and foundation checking, drilling for the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), transportation expenses, and JCB charges for excavation of the foundation after the collapse of the building. Therefore, the petitioners claim entitlement to a total sum of Rs. 41,17,649/- from the respondent as compensation, in terms of the contract. Therefore, the petitioners have filed these revisions on the following grounds.
5. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned award is perverse, contrary to the record, and deserves to be set aside. That the impugned award being contrary to the facts and law and is Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 20-04-2026 11:15:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29996 4 AR-98-2023 liable to be set aside.
6. It is further submitted that no liberty has been granted to the petitioners to approach the competent authority under Clause 29 of the contract, thereby effectively depriving the petitioners of its remedy in the matter. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be set aside.
7. The petitioners also contend that the learned Tribunal failed to grant liberty to approach the competent authority, namely the Deputy Housing Commissioner, under Clause 29 of the contract. It is submitted that the Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity, rendering the impugned award liable to be set aside. The Tribunal further erred in not permitting the applicant to invoke Clause 29, which has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice. It is urged that granting such liberty would be in the larger public interest. Additionally, it is contended that, in view of Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, 1983, the Tribunal lacks the power to review its own award.
8. The respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the revisions petitions are not maintainable, as they have been filed without complying with the provisions of Section 7-B of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.
9. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Sanjay Dubey v. State of M.P. (2012 (4) MPLJ 212 , wherein it has been held in paragraph 13(i) that where a works contract contains a clause like Clause 29, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal can be invoked only after approaching the Authority as provided under the terms of the works contract, the Commercial Court has Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 20-04-2026 11:15:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29996 5 AR-98-2023 rightly rejected the reference petition as not maintainable.
10. In the interest of justice and considering that the dispute has not been adjudicated on merits, the petitioners are granted liberty to avail the remedy under Clause 29 of the contract by approaching the competent authority in accordance with law. It is further clarified that all issues raised shall remain open for consideration and shall be decided independently by the competent authority on their own merits.
11. Revision petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
MSP
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 20-04-2026
11:15:25