9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the claim. The award is only in the sum of Rs. 6,52,235/- with interest. The award was made on 25th April 2014. Therefore, in the facts of the case, it will be unjust to set aside the award only on the ground of the failure of the appellant to take recourse to the 1983 Act. In fact, the appellant had taken recourse to the 1983 Act before seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator. In this case, as can be seen from the impugned judgment, the award has been set aside only on the ground that the appellant ought to have invoked the provisions of the 1983 Act. Even assuming that the observations in paragraph 17 of the decision in the case of MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ANR. VERSUS M/S. L.G. CHAUDHARY ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act ) would apply. The Tribunal held that only when there is no arbitration clause, the provisions of the 1983 Act would apply. In view of this order, the appellant filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The petition was allowed, and a retired District Judge was appointed as the Arbitrator. An award was made on 25th April 2014 by the learned Arbitrator. 2. The respondents, aggrieved by the said award, preferred a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the District Judge, Jabalpur. The learned District Judge dismissed the said petition. The respondents filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the dispute was raised at the appropriate stage, and hence, paragraph 17 of the decision in the case of Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority1 will have no application. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 5. A few factual aspects will have to be noted. After the contract granted to the appellant was rescinded, the appellant invoked Section 7 of the 1983 Act by approaching the Arbitration Tribunal. By the order dated 19th April 2010, the Arbitration Tribunal held that in view of the arbitration clause in the contract, the 1983 Act will have no application and the appellant will have to take recourse to the Arbitration Act. In view of this order, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 11(6) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Arbitration Tribunal, holding that the Arbitration Act will apply, led the appellant to file a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, which was not objected to on the grounds of the applicability of the 1983 Act. The objection of the State government was confined to the merits of the claim. The award is only in the sum of Rs. 6,52,235/- with interest. The award was made on 25th April 2014. Therefore, in the facts of the case, it will be unjust to set aside the award only on the ground of the failure of the appellant to take recourse to the 1983 Act. In fact, the appellant had taken recourse to the 1983 Act before seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator. In this case, as can be seen from the impugned judgment, the award has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
