9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 2044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the M.P. Act stands implied repealed by the Central Act.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 - it is found from the definition Under Section 2(d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that even after a contract is terminated, the subject-matter of dispute is covered by the said definition. The said provision has not been even referred to in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Gyan Sudha Mishra, J. Thus, the view expressed by Hon'ble Ganguly J. is the correct interpretation and not the contra view of Hon'ble Gyan Sudha Mishra J. Reference stands answered accordingly. - Civil Appeal No. 2753 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11617/2012), Civil Appeal No. 2754 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11618/2012), Civil Appeal No. 2755 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11619/2012), Civil Appeal No. 2616 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35641/2011), Civil Appeal Nos. 2756-2757 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11633-11634/2012), Civil Appeal Nos. 2758-2759 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11631-11632/2012) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Vats, Adv., Mr. K. Krishna Kumar, AOR, Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Adv., Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR, Mr. Ankit Kumar Lal, Adv., Mr. Arjun Garg, Adv., Mr. Jaspreet Singh Rai, Adv., Mr. Rohit Nagpal, Adv., Mr. Harpreet Singh Rai, Adv., Ms. Harsimran Rana Rai, Adv., Ms. Sukhdeep Rana Rai, Adv., Mr. Shyamal Kumar, AOR, Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv., Mr. Apoorva Srivastava, Adv., Ms. Sugandha Batra, Adv., Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR, Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv., Mr. Apoorva Srivastava, Adv., Ms. Sugandha Batra, Adv., Mr. Chandan Kumar, AOR, Mr. Prateek Khanna, Adv., Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR, Mr. Niraj Sharma, AOR, Mr. Rahul Narayan, AOR JUDGMENT C.A. No. 974/2012: The matter has been placed before this Bench of three Judges pursuant to order dated 24th January, 2012 which is as follows: In view of some divergence of views expressed in the two judgments delivered today by us, the matter may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench to resolve the divergence. Appointment of arbitrator in a dispute arising out of execution of a 'works contract' was the subject-matter for consideration before the High Court Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdiction of the M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal so as to be referred for adjudication arising out of its termination. We find from the definition Under Section 2(d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that even after a contract is terminated, the subject-matter of dispute is covered by the said definition. The said provision has not been even referred to in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Gyan Sudha Mishra, J. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by Hon'ble Ganguly J. is the correct interpretation and not the contra view of Hon'ble Gyan Sudha Mishra J. Reference stands answered accordingly. 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. (supra) which has been held to be per incuriam. The M.P. Act cannot be held to be impliedly repealed. We are, thus, is agreement with the proposed opinion of Hon'ble Ganguly J. in para 42 of the reported judgment which reads as follows: 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, Misc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Anr. (1996) 5 SCC 411 in para 12 which is as follows: Sections 6(1), 7, 12, 36 and 37 have expressly excluded from the operation of statutory arbitration. The rest of the provisions per force would get attracted. But the provisions of the appropriate statute or rules should necessarily be consistent with the provisions of the Arbitration Act. In that event, despite absence of an arbitration agreement, rest of the provisions of Arbitration Act would apply (as if there was an arbitration agreement between the parties) and the dispute becomes arbitrable under the Arbitration Act, as if there was an arbitration agreement between the parties. If there is any inconsistency, then the provisions of the Arbitration Act do not get attracted. Section 33 expressly gives power to the civil court to decide the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement or the award as such. If this question was to arise, necessarily the civil court would be devoid of jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merits but only in the forum of arbitration. The existence and validity of the arbitration agreement should be decided by the civil court. The arbitrator cannot clothe himself with jurisdiction to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the time stipulated, the award could not have been annulled. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the award is restored. It is, however make it clear that this order will not debar proceedings Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. C.A. No. 2762 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 796/2014: Leave granted. In view of order passed in C.A. No. 2616 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 35641/2011, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh decision under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also stand disposed of. SLP(C) No. 19637/2017, SLP(C) No. 21017/2017, SLP(C) No. 7416/2017, SLP(C) No. 21037/2017, SLP(C) No. 30773/2017, SLP(C) No. 23107/2017, SLP(C) No. 7407/2017, SLP(C) No. 5076/2017 SLP(C) No. 20744/2017: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also stand disposed of. C.A. No. 11383/2017: Heard learned Counsel for the partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
