Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19
(2018) 16 SCC 296
4. When the matter was considered by a Bench of this Court on 24-1-2012 (order in M.P. Rural Road Development Authority v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors [M.P. Rural Road Development Authority v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors, (2012) 3 SCC 495 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 210]), this Court held that the judgment in VA Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. [VA Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. M.P. SEB, (2011) 13 SCC 261 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 468] was per incuriam insofar as it held that the M.P. Act stands impliedly repealed by the Central Act.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: (M.P. Rural Road Development case [M.P. Rural Road Development Authority v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors, (2012) 3 SCC 495 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 210], SCC p. 511, para 51) “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 Maharshi Dayanand University v.

7. Taking up appeal on merits, we find that the High Court proceeded on the basis of the judgment of this Court in VA Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. [VA Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. M.P. SEB, (2011) 13 SCC 261 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 468] which has been held to be per incuriam. The M.P. Act cannot be held to be impliedly repealed.

8. We are, thus, in agreement with the proposed opinion of Hon'ble Ganguly, J. in para 42 of the reported judgment which reads as follows: (M.P. Rural Road Development case [M.P. Rural Road Development Authority v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors, (2012) 3 SCC 495: (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 210], SCC p. 509, para 42) “42. Therefore, appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court which is based on the reasoning of VA Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. M.P. SEB [VA Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. M.P. SEB, Misc. Appeal No. 380 of 2003, order dated 5-3-2003 (MP)] is set aside. This Court holds the decision in VA Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. M.P. SEB [VA Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. M.P. SEB, (2011) 13 SCC 261: (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 468] has been rendered in per incuriam. In that view of the matter the arbitration proceeding may proceed under the M.P. Act of 1983 and not under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.” The appeal is accordingly disposed of.” 11.5.1. In a recent decision in Gayathri Project Ltd v. M.P. Road Development Corporation Ltd20, this Court reiterated the exposition of law laid down in L.G. Chaudhary in clear terms, as follows: