Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 2 docs
Section 9 in The Arbitration Act, 1940

User Queries
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Keti Construction, vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2010

                        C.R. No.509 of 2005

M/s Keti Construction                                  State of M.P. & ors.


       Shri V.R. Rao, Learned Senior Advocate with Shri Abhijeet
Awasthy, Counsel for the petitioner.
       Shri Vivek Agrawal, G.A. for the respondents.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3746/2005 [VA Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. Vs. M.P.S.E.Bord and another] and in S.L.P.(C) No.2239 of 2008 [Navbharat Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of M.P. & ors.], the judgment rendered by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal has been declared as invalid, so he may be permitted to withdraw this revision with liberty to take recourse of law.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the petition.

In VA Tech (supra) the Apex Court considering the question held thus:-

" Civil Appeal No.3746 of 2005 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 05 th March,2003. It appears that the appellant was awarded a work contract by the respondents. There was some dispute between the parties and there is an arbitration clause in the agreement. Appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996 (for short the 1996 Act) which was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge and that order has been upheld by the High Court. Hence this appeal.
Section 7(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short the 1983 Act) provides as follows:-
"7. Reference to Tribunal -(1) Either party to a works contract shall irrespective of the fact whether the agreement contains an arbitration clause or not, refer in writing the dispute to the Tribunal."
Subsequently, the Parliament enacted the 1996 Act. The 1996 Act only applies where there is an arbitration clause but it does not apply where there is none. The 1996 Act covers all kinds of disputes including the dispute relating to work contracts.
In our opinion, the 1983 Act and the 1996 Act can be harmonised by holding that the 1983 Act only applies where

C.R. No.509 of 2005 M/s Keti Construction State of M.P. & ors.

13.8.2010 there is no arbitration clause but it stands impliedly repealed by the 1996 Act where there is an arbitration clause. We hold accordingly.

Hence, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and we hold that the application under section 9 of the 1996 Act was maintainable.

The Appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs."

In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, we allow the petitioner to withdraw this revision with liberty as prayed.

No order as to costs.

 (Krishn Kumar Lahoti)                             (J.K.Maheshwari)
      JUDGE                                           JUDGE