9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal to arbitrate on disputes to which the State Government or a Public Undertaking (wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the State Government), is a party, and for matters incidental thereto or connected therewith. The Arbitral Tribunal is constituted in terms of Section 3 of the Act for resolving all disputes and differences pertaining to works contract or arising out of or connected with execution, discharge or satisfaction of any such works contract. Section 7 provides for reference to Tribunal. Such reference may be made irrespective of the fact as to whether the agreement contains an arbitration clause or not. Section 7-A provides for the particulars on the basis whereof the reference petition is to be filed. Section 7-B provides for limitation for filing an application, which is in the following terms: -B. Limitation.- (1) The Tribunal shall not admit a reference petition unless - (a) the dispute is first referred for the decision of the final authority under the terms of the works contract; and (b) the petition to the Tribunal is made within one year from the date of communication of the decision of the final autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod. Explanation. - the fact that the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment or the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this sub-section. 5. We may notice that the proviso thereto had been appended by the M.P. Act No. 19 of 2005. 6. The State of M.P. filed a revision application before the High Court. It was barred by 80 days. 7. A question as to whether the High Court could have condoned the delay or not came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the said Court in Nagarpalika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal Construction Co. 2004 (II) MPJR 374. It was held therein that the provisions of Section 5 of the 1963 Act being not available, the delay cannot be condoned. 8. Reference was thereafter made to a Full Bench in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker AIR1995SC2272 . In the meantime the decision in Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena (supra) came up for consideration before this Court. The decision of the Division Bench was affirmed by this Court stating: Heard Mr. Sushil Kum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 17, as noticed hereinbefore, provides for finality of the award, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law relating to arbitration. 13. The High Court exercises a limited power. The revisional power conferred upon the High Court is akin to Section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure. It has the power to decide as to whether the Tribunal has misconducted itself or the proceedings or has made an award which is invalid in law or has been improperly procured by any party to the proceedings. 14. As noticed here to before the proviso appended to Section 19 was added by M.P. Act No. 19 of 2005. Prior thereto the High Court, even at the instance of a party, despite expiry of the period of limitation could have exercised its suo motu jurisdiction. 15. It is a trite law that provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to a Court. It has no application in regard to a Tribunal or personal designata. There exists a distinction between a Court and the Tribunal. 16. The very fact that the authorities under the Act are empowered to examine witnesses after administering oath to them clearly shows that they are 'Court&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision, this Court has held that, when a question arises as to whether the authority constituted under a particular Act exercising judicial or quasi judicial power is a court or not, then the following tests must be fulfilled before the said authority can be termed as a court: (a) the dispute which is to be decided by him must be in the nature of a civil suit: (b) the procedure for determination of such dispute must be judicial procedure ; and (c) the decision must be a binding nature. The aforementioned judgment has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. Sitamarhi Central Coop. Bank Ltd. 1967CriLJ1380a In Chandra Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court has held the Compensation Officer acting under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, to be a court as the said officer exercises judicial power deciding civil dispute and pass an order which is final and binding between the parties. In S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue, U. P., Lucknow v. Vinoy Chandra Misra 1981CriLJ283 the Board of Revenue has been held to be a court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Laws of evidence and other principles of Common Law are fully applicable to the Courts. 10. The justice in courts is without `biss' or `affection or ill will. Administrative Adjudication In this the disputes are decided by the persons having administrative experience. The administrators may initiate action by themselves. The administrators may decide each case on its merits. The decisions of administrators are usually subjective. In this even other citizens may appear in the interest of public. In administrative adjudication, normally the decisions are final and there is a much greater scope for arbitrary decisions of the adjudicators. The administrative adjudicators may pass even cryptic non speaking orders. This is not so normally in case of Tribunals unless the law incorporating them may provide. The Tribunals are not bound by any such law and need to follow only the principles of Natural Justice. These have to apply the special policy and thus cannot view things with that `Cold neutrality of the impartial judge' (Schwarts in American Administrative Law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law court entertain suits on various matters, including the matter relating to the vires of legislation. However, such a Tribunal like ordinary law courts, as found hereinbefore, are bound by the rules of evidence and procedure as laid down under the law and are required to decide strictly, as per the law. O. Hood Phillips and Paul Jackson in O. Hood Phillips' Constitutional and Administrative Law, Sixth Edition, at page 575 observed as follows. - Administrative Jurisdiction or Administrative Justice is a name given to various ways of deciding disputes outside the ordinary courts. It is not possible to define precisely what bodies constitute the ordinary courts although this expression was used in the Tribunals and Inquiries Acts 1958 and 1971. There are some bodies that might be placed under the heading either of ordinary courts or of special tribunals. Guidance cannot be found in the name of a body; the Employment Appeal Tribunal, for example, is a superior court of record. At page 576 under the Chapter Special Tribunals the author has stated as follows: These are independent statutory tribunals whose function is judicial. They are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal for all intent and purport is a Court. The Tribunal has to determine a lis. There are two parties before it. It proceedings are judicial proceeding subject to the revisional order which may be passed by the High Court. 24. In Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra [1974]3SCR31 this Court was considering a question whether an Election Tribunal while sitting on a Saturday, which is not a usual working day, would function as Court. It was opined: 10. Now that we have held that the Court is not closed and the petition could have been presented to the Registrar on Saturday, March 18, 1972, the question would be, does Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to enable the petitioner to show sufficient cause for not filing it on the last day of limitation, but on a subsequent day? Whether Section 5 is applicable to election petitions filed under Section 81 of the Act will depend upon the terms of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Whether Section 5 could be invoked would also depend on the applicability of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act to election petitions. Under this sub-section where a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal or application by any special or local law --(a) the provisions contained in Section 4, Sections 9 to 18, and Section 22 shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law; and(b) the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply. Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. 25. There cannot, therefore, any doubt whatsoever that if the Arbitral Tribunal in question is a Court and not a personal designate, Sub-section (2) of Section 29, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply. It is only when the limitation provided under the Special Law, is different from that prescribed in the Sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority of Nasirrudin and Ors. v. Sitaram and Ors. [2003]1SCR634 and Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. AIR2001SC4010 . 30. In Popular Construction (supra) application of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was in question. The Arbitration Act clearly provided for a limitation in the matter of exercise of discretionary jurisdiction for condoning the delay only for a period of 30 days and not thereafter. It was in the aforementioned situation this Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act as such will have no application, as a special limitation has been provided for. 31. In Nasirrudin (supra) this Court was considering the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the matter of deposit of rent. The said question came up for consideration in the light of the power of the Rent Controller in terms of the Rent Control Statute in the matter of depositing the rent. In other words the question was that the provision was directory or mandatory. It was in that view of the matter this Court opined :- 45. On perusal of the said section it is evident that the question of application of Section 5 would arise where any appeal or any application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
