9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 264 - SC - Indian LawsJurisdiction - powers to make interim orders - whether the Gujarat Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal constituted under Section 3 of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 has jurisdiction to make interim orders in terms of Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? HELD THAT - The appropriate remedy for the contractor was to approach the arbitral tribunal constituted under the Gujarat Act since that would have jurisdiction to decide whether the notice issued by the Government was a legal notice and whether the Government was, in fact, entitled to recover any amount from the contractor - It would also be within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide whether the contractor has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief. We are purposely not going into the merits of the case because once we hold that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute it would not be proper for us to make any comments on the merits. Insofar as the powers vested in the Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the Section 17 of the A C Act are concerned, such powers can be exercised by the Tribunal constituted under the Gujarat Act because there is no inconsistency in these two Acts as far as the grant of interim relief is concerned - This power is already vested in the tribunal under the Gujarat Act and Section 17 of the A C Act compliments these powers and therefore it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 17 of the A C Act are inconsistent with the Gujarat Act. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Gujarat Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal to make interim orders under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Applicability and interpretation of Clause 43.A of the contract. 3. Validity of the High Court’s order restraining the state from recovering amounts from the contractor without adjudication. 4. Correctness of the High Court’s reliance on previous judgments. 5. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts versus the Tribunal under the Gujarat Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The primary issue is whether the Gujarat Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal has jurisdiction to make interim orders as per Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The Tribunal was constituted under Section 3 of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 (Gujarat Act). The Supreme Court noted that the Gujarat Act mandates compulsory arbitration for disputes arising from "works contracts" with the State Government or Public Sector Undertakings. The Tribunal has the authority to make interim awards under Section 8(3) of the Gujarat Act, although it previously held that it could not grant interim injunctions. The Court clarified that the Tribunal could exercise powers under Section 17 of the A&C Act, as there is no inconsistency between the two Acts regarding interim relief. 2. Applicability and Interpretation of Clause 43.A: Clause 43.A of the contract allows the State to appropriate any sum due to the contractor against claims arising from other contracts with the Government. The contractor argued that the State could not withhold payments from other contracts without determining liability through a competent forum. The State contended that it could recover amounts due to defective work by the contractor. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the legality of the State's notice and the contractor's entitlement to interim relief. 3. Validity of the High Court’s Order: The High Court had restrained the State from recovering amounts from the contractor without adjudication, relying on previous judgments, including State of Karnataka vs. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to pass such an order, as the appropriate remedy was for the contractor to approach the Tribunal. The High Court's order was set aside, and the contractor was directed to seek relief from the Tribunal. 4. Correctness of the High Court’s Reliance on Previous Judgments: The High Court relied on the judgment in Gangotri Enterprises Limited vs. Union of India, which was based on Union of India vs. Raman Iron Foundry. The Supreme Court pointed out that Raman Iron Foundry had been overruled by a three-judge bench in H.M. Kamaluddin Ansari & Co. vs. Union of India, which held that the Government could withhold amounts due under other contracts. Consequently, the reliance on Gangotri Enterprises was deemed incorrect and per incuriam. 5. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts versus the Tribunal: Section 13 of the Gujarat Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters that the Tribunal is empowered to decide. This includes the powers to grant interim relief and set aside awards, which are vested in the Tribunal and the High Court under the Gujarat Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Tribunal, not the Civil Courts, has jurisdiction over disputes arising from works contracts under the Gujarat Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Gujarat, set aside the High Court's judgments, and directed the contractor to approach the Gujarat Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal. The Tribunal was instructed to decide the matter on merits without dismissing it on the grounds of limitation if approached within two months.
|
