gil' '•'" y p ^ .»-^AAUl.tj, JL IN HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. ^! o?^20ii omsi Vs RESPON&ENTS APPLICANT Manish Pipes Pvt. Ltd. through Shri Jagdish Jhawar, Director, B-13 Industrial Area Rawanbhata, Raipur (C(5) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, thr^ough the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Raipur (C6) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Project Division, Nehru Nagar (West), Water Tank, Bhilai (C6) PETITION UNbER SECTION 19 OF THE C-6. MAbHYASTHAM ADHIKARAN AOHINIYAM. 1983 ^^- ry'^fy^^ ^•y v^y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. IVIINHAJUDDIN. JJ Applicant Respondents Civil Revision No. 86 pf 2011 Vs Manish Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh and another Applicant Respondents And Civil Revision No. 87 of 2011 Vs Manish Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh and another Present: Mr. B.P. Sharma, counsel for the applicant. Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on ) ^ December, 2011) Per G. Minhaiuddin. J 1. The aforesaid civil revisions have been filed under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (in short "the Act, 1983") against the order dated 20.5.2011 passed by Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur, whereby the application ofttie applicant under Section 17-A ofthe Act, 1983 has been treated as an application for withdrawing both the Reference Cases filed under Section 7 of the Act, 1983 with liberty to approach appropriate Court/Forum under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1.996, and allowed to that extent only, but the prayer of the applicant for refund of the Court fee paid alongwith both the reference cases have been refused. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in respect of two work contracts that the?dispute arose between the parties and as per arbitration clause containe^ in the work contracts, the dispute was referred to the arbitrator, agaiRSt whose awards the abovementioned two reference INBm ou seq |Banqui sL|Vusijl 'iumo^ aieudojdde aqi ajo^aq uoiieiuasejd JQJ eouajsjsj eqi peujnisj seq '9661 'PV 341-1° suoisiAOJd 941 japun ujmoj/pnoo sieudojdde sqi ajojaq SLUBS sqi e|tt 0} AlJ3qi| 411M 90U9J3J3J JO |eMBJpL|i!M joi uoiieoiidde ue se £931. 'ioy e4t 10 v-Zl uoipes japun uoiieoiidde SIL| Buuapisuoo jeye |eunqui sqi uaqM ieq} si iueoi|dde 941 JQI |esunpo psujesi ^o uoiiuaiuoo 'fr •IBunqyisqioisesi. ' 'PV 941 jo ^. uoipss jspun epeai SEM eoueja^aj leqi '600Z'£'£uo leunqut lefliqje 941 Aq psssed jepjo 941 isuie6e pue leunqui |BJiiqje 3L|i 01 iuauj38j6e 941 ^o /.[. asneio japun uoiiejiiqjE jo^ psjja^aj SEM ssiijed 341 uaaAfqsq pejiuoo )|JOM sqi 10 ino Suisye sindsip 341 •e •ps|U uesq SAELI suoji!t9d UOISIA9J luessjd aqi IE^I 'ssi ynoo 941 punisj 01 lesniaj siqi isu!e6e si i| 'ssseo aoueja^aj aqi L|ioq 4tjM6uo|e psiisodep SB qoiqM 'ssj tjnoQ ai|ip pun^aj iuej6 01 pssnj.aj 'jspjo psu6ndtU! eqi jo 8-ejed epiA 'inq 'tueixs IELI} 01 uoiieoiidde 341 p9MO||B '9661 'PV 84l ^o suoisiAQjd 941 J9pun Lumoj/ijnoQ sieudojdde qoeojdde 01 Atjsqji q^m seseo eouejeiaj 341 qioq BuimejpLiiiM jo^ uoiieoiidde ue se uoiieoiidde pies eqi SUIIESJI leunquj. aL|i 'J9A9MOH 'sjopjo stBUdojdiEle^uissed jo^ pue eouejspj aL|i epioap o»uoipipsunf ou seq |eunqui 941 '(ejdns) •pn /SAoy sse//M jsyos^ t/aej. v/\ ^o JSHBLU 34} ui ijnoo xady 8|q,uo|-| 3i|l P iuaiu6pnf 34i p maiA ui ieqi |eunqui 9t)i euftBLUiiu! £861 'PV QW jo v -i\, uoipeg jepun go/l. 'ON'SSBO eouajejey ui PSAOLU SGM lueoiidde 9L|t jo .t|BL|eq uo uoiieoiidde ue 'iu3iu6pnf presejoie sqi ui ynoo xsdy aiq.uoH SL|I Aq UMOP pie| MB| BLII MeiA ui Buidea)) 'sjo^jaqi '(,,9661. 'PV a4t,, Voys ui) 9661. 'PV uoiieiipuoQ pue uoiiejiiqjv eqi ^o suoisiAOjd eqi jspun speuu eq 01 si eouajs^ej eqi pue peisno spueis £961. 'PV 341 Jepun peinijisuoo |eunqui uoiiejtiqje 34} io uoipipsunf eqi ueqi 'esneio uoiiejiiqje ue si 3J9L|i 11 PEJIUOO >|JOM e ui U9Aa ieqt UMOP piB) '(35) 9{'l- T'TM 'W OI.OZ "! peijodej 'jiaifioue pue pjeog '3's'd'W 'SA 'PH /s^oy sseAM jei/osg yoe^ VA J° SSE3 84l Ul }jnoo aaisjdns a|q,uoH 341 'saseo eousjeiaj aqi 4ioq ^o Aouepued Buunp 'jaAaMOH '(jeunqui eL|i,, yoqs ui) ueje>|!4pv lueqtseAqpBi^ qjeesiueqqo aqi ejojeq £861. 't^v 94» ^ uoipas jepun p8|ij ajeM Q\./\, '§60/l's°N 8seo 'jay 'e'! seseo \,^ a.i8T| -A|cTdB iou seop \\ inq 8sne|o uoiiejiiqje ue sj ajeqi eiaqM sei|dde A|UO pv 9661- 941 'PV 9661. 941 pspeua lusLueiijed 341 'Aiiusnbssqns ,,-ieunqui 941 oi eindsip 341 BUIIUM U! js^aj 'iou JO ssnep . uoflBJiiqje UB suietuoo luatusajBe 341 jai^iaiiM pe^ SL|I jo SAjpedsajJj ||EL|S pejiuoo S^JOM . - e 01 Aijed JSLIIQ ([.) - •|eunqui 01 eouejeiey '^,, -:SMO||OJ se sepiAojd (,pv £961941, ^ioys -i°J-) £861. 'iueAiuiqpv UBJB)|!L|PV LUEL|tseA4pe|/\| qsapejj eAL|pe|/\| sqi jo (i.)^. uoipes,, :japun se paAjesqo seq ynoo eujsjdns a|q,uo|-| sqt yoiqM ui 'eLueo (ejdns) •pn /s/ioy sseX/M JS1/OS3 yosj. y/\ p JBUBLU 941 ui ynoQ eLuejdng 9|q,uo|-| eqi jo lusiuBpnf leqi 'seousjspj aqi qioq jo Aouepued Buunp 'jeAamoH '£861 'PV SMlJspun psiniiisuoo |eunqui sqi sjojsq egci. 'PV a4l 1° 2. uoipes japun souajejsj epeiu seq lueoiidde luessjd sq^ qoiqM tsuieBe '600Z'£'£PSlBp japjo eq} pessed qoiqM 'ieunqu} IBJiiqje eqi Q} pajje^aj sem auues 941 'iueujeejBe eqi p ^\, asneio jsd se 'sindsip e 10 Buisue uo pue pejtuoo )|JOM e 01 BU!I.E|SJ seiijed sqt uaaA^eq QIUI pejsiua SEM luauuesjBe ue }e^\ stndsip ui iou si }\ 'i. •japjo p9u6ndLUi QU^ se ||9M se pjooej uo s|qe|!BAe leueteai 9Lj) pssmed 'seifJed eqi JQJ issunoo paujeei pje9|-| '9 Z891. OS POOZWV 'Jawoue pue -pt~l sauotejoqe-i euueiidna -s/\ jay»ouepue yg Jeydxg pue '(-d'H) PZFZ 3HIV OOOZ '"*a0 ue/as^ •?u/s 's/\ 'tao UBJfuer •'Z^Z e»no/eo ZQOZ tf/y 'Jawoue pue -p}-i Auuies eAeqeuues ueiujiueifUQ je^eAy 's/\ sjaiffo pue eyng eueyi jisis 'iu/s !('3'd) £61.peqeqeiw OKGI- tllV 'SJQWO pue nuuei/yo •SA ifueuv •OT io sjeyeu sqi ui s}U9Lu6pnf 841 10 seidoooioyd psuiiuqns seq issunoo peujesi 'uoiiuaiuoo 314 ^o ijoddns u| 'aa^ ijnoo sqi jo punjej-uou 0} seiE|9J }\ se jei os japjo p9u6ndLui eq} pe^ioddns SBL| tU3puodsej/9ie}g 3[Q jo^ |esunoo psujesi 'pueq JSL|P 941 UQ '9 •eouajsjaj QW q}!MBuo|e pied sej ijnoo sq) ^o punjaj ssn^sj 01 uoipipsunf there is none. The 1996 Act covers all kinds of disputes including the dispute relating to work contracts. J" In our opinion, the 1983 Act and the 1996 Act can be harmonized by holding that the 1983 Act only applies where there is no arbitration clause but it stands impliedly repealed by the 1996 Act where there is an arbitration clause. We hold accordingly." 8. Thus, keeping in view the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned coynsel for the applicant moved an application under Section 17-A of the Act, 1983 before the Tribunal intimating it that as there is an arbitration ctause in the agreement executed between the parties, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of V.A. Tech Escher l/Vyass Flovel Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal, constituted under the Act, 1983, does not have the jurisdiction to decide the reference, and has prayed for passing of appropriate orders. However, the Tribunal, treating the said application under Section 17-A of the Act, 1983 as an application for withdrawal of the reference with tiberty to file the same before the appropriate CourVForum under the provisions of the Act, 1996, has in paras 7 & 8 of the impugned order has observed thus: "In the light of VA Tech Escher Wyass Flover Limited's case we find that there is sufficient ground to return the reference with liberty to file fresh reference. In the light of above discussion, for granting permission to withdrawal under clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of rule (1) of order XXII and thereby under regulation 53(2)(b), it is not essential that reference must fail due to some formal defect. However, in the light of VA Tech Escher's case, reference might fail due to lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner has filed application ("•".objecting the jurisdictjon but in facts and —B ? Kl! circumstances of the case we treat application I.A.No.3, filed by the petitioner challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as one filed for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file fresh reference. If we hold that Tribunal is having no jurisdiction, still we will have to return the petition for filing before proper court/forum. Therefore, treating I.A.No.3 one for withdrawal with liberty to file fresh reference, we think it proper to direct that the petition be returned to the petitioner. Respondents have the opportunity to raise the objection that the relevant clause in the agreement does not amoiant to "arbitration clause" and hence 1983 Act shall be applicable, before the court/forum where the petitioner chooses to seek his remedies. Since the petition in this case and that in reference case no. 1/10 are being returned and thus both the case are being disposed, therefore, passing of any order, on I.A.No.1 and IA.No 2 filed by the respondents in this case and t.A.No.1 filed in t-eference case No.1/10, is not required. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the court-fee paid be refunded to the petitioner. Reliance, in this regard, has been placed on M/s Shri Bhaiyalal Shukla V/s State of M.P. reported in 1998 A.T.L.R. 547. The facts of the above case are different. In that case the matter was compromised out of the court and the > petition was withdrawn. There was no occasion to file any fresh petition. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not think it proper to invoke inherent powers for directing refund of the court-fee." 9. Thus, iri view of the above, it is clear that the Tribunat by its order dated 20.5.2011 has treated the aBBlicationJiled by the applicant ^ ^ under Section 17-A of the Act, 1983, for exercising inherent povters^--^ as an application for withdrawal of the reference with liberty to file a fresh reference before the appropriate Court/forum. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.A. Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. (supra), it is clear that when there is an arbitration clause in an agreement and even in cases of dispute relating to work contract, the Act, 1983 stands repealed and the reference has to be made before the appropriate Court/Forum under the provisions of the Act, 1996. The present case is not a case of either rejection of plaint or a case in which after return of the reference, there is no Court/Forum available to the present applicant for getting his reference ^idjudicated because he has a remedy under the provisions of the Act, 1996. As such, the case laws cited by learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contention are of no help to the respondent. When the plaint or a reference, as in the present case, is returned to the plaintiff or the applicant with liberty to present it before the appropriate Court/Forum, then as a natural and necessary corollary, the Court fee has to be returned, and by refusing to refund the Courf fee, there is no doubt that the Tribunal has committed a grave error of law and therefore, the impugned order dated 20.5.2011, so far as it relates to refusal to refund the Court fee, cannot be sustained. 10.1n the result, both the revision petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 20.5.2011, so far as it relates to non-refund of the Court fee to the applicant, is hereby set aside. The applicant shall be entitled to refund of the Court fee paid alongwith both the reference cases i.e. Ref. Case Nos. 1/09 and 1/10. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.'M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Ri II II ^\ ("•" fSi 4.