9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 313 - HC - Indian LawsAppointment of arbitrator - Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - HELD THAT - Since the parties have agreed to resolve the disputes amongst them by taking recourse to the remedy available under Clause-25 of the agreement, i.e in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court deems it fit and proper to recall the order dated 4.10.2018 passed in CWJC No. 13292 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to move the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, and grants liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator for resolving the dispute, which has arisen in between the parties. It is directed accordingly. Review petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the reference case before the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Tribunal. 2. Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 versus the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008. 3. Judicial propriety and discipline in following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the reference case before the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Tribunal: The petitioner filed a review petition seeking a review of the order directing them to move before the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Tribunal for dispute resolution. The Tribunal observed that the reference case was not maintainable based on the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 3344 of 2018 (State of Bihar & Ors. v. M/S Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd.), which established that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act) would prevail over the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 (State Act) if an arbitration agreement stipulates the applicability of the Central Act. 2. Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 versus the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008: The court examined the provisions of both the Central Act and the State Act. It was noted that Section 8 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 states that the provisions of the State Act are supplemental to the Central Act and, in case of conflict, the Central Act will prevail. The court referred to the judgment in Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority & Anr. v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractor, where it was held that similar state acts are valid and can operate concurrently with the Central Act, provided they do not conflict. The court also noted that the Bihar Act had not received presidential assent, unlike the Madhya Pradesh Act, and therefore, the Central Act would prevail in case of conflict. 3. Judicial propriety and discipline in following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court: The court emphasized the importance of judicial propriety and discipline in following the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was observed that the Supreme Court had upheld the view that in cases where an arbitration agreement exists and stipulates the applicability of the Central Act, the Bihar Act will not apply. The court reiterated that the agreement in question provided for arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and therefore, the Bihar Act would not apply. Conclusion: The court allowed the review petition, recalling the earlier order directing the petitioner to move before the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Tribunal. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an arbitrator. The interim protection granted to the petitioner was extended for eight weeks to allow them to pursue appropriate remedies without prejudice.
|
