Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Arbitration Revision Nos.11, 12 & 13 of 2017 by which the High Court has quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal and has directed the said Tribunal to decide the respective references on merits, Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board and another have preferred the present appeals.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board has preferred the present appeal.

5. Shri Bharat Singh, learned AAG has appeared for the appellants and Shri Kavin Gulati, learned Senior Advocate has appeared for the respondent ­ contractor in the respective appeals.

6. Shri Bharat Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal dated 27.02.2017 by which the learned Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the reference/claim petition filed by the respondent ­ contractor as not maintainable, in view of the earlier award passed by the learned Arbitrator and directing the learned Arbitral Tribunal to entertain the claim reference and to decide the same on merits is unsustainable in law as well as on facts. 6.1 It is urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has not at all appreciated and considered the fact that earlier the dispute between the parties was referred to the Arbitrator­ Housing Commissioner by the High Court and that too in the petition filed by the respondent ­ contractor himself. It is submitted that the High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that as such the learned Arbitrator appointed pursuant to the order passed by the High Court had passed an award which had attained finality inasmuch as the said award had not been challenged by the respondent – contractor by way of appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.