Oivision Bend IN HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. ll_ OF 2011 APPLICANT ^' anish Pipes Pvt. Ltd. through Vs 8'E^PONbENTS /^' ^v /y/ i^' z'yx ^^f" ^yx r^^ Y Shri Jagdish Jhawar, Director, B-13 Industrial Area, Rawanbhata, Raipur (C6) l^State of Chhattisgarh, -through the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Raipur (C6) Z. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Project bivision, Nehru Nagar (West), Water Tank, Bhilai (C6) PETITION UNbER SECTION 19 OF THE C.6. MADHYASTHAM ADHIKARAN ADHINIYAM. 1983 ^r".'. ~^ '^a^ 1 ^-w^<^ ~<<a.£s^^ __AB— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. J Applicant Respondents Civil Revision No. 86 of 2011 Vs Manish Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh and another Appljcant Respondents And Civjl Revision No. 87 of 2011 Vs Manish Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh and another Order For Consideration Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge HON'BLE SHRI I.M. QUDDUSI. J o^ ^ Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge ^ Post For Order On }S December,2011 Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ys^- r -s^^*'^^^* '-^'•'iSi's^.^.s^vfsSssei1'1^ ^' .K'.— / •^^ "3] HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ Aoplicant Respondents Civil Revision No. 86 of 2011 Vs Manish Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh and another Applicant Resepndents 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 forthe 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 ofthe applicant under Section 17-A ofthe Act, 1983 has been treated as an application for withdrawing both the Reference Cases filed under Section 7 ofthe Act, 1983 with liberty to approach appropriate Court/Forum under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, 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 contained in the work contracts, the dispute was referred to the arbitrator, against wht)se awards the^boyementioned two reference ••^sM^MB^^^Sa«B^;^5Xi'' .^ ^ ••-^- cases i.e. Ref. Case Nos.1/09 & 1/10 were filed under Section 7 of the Act, 1983 before the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran (in short "the Tribunal"). However, during pendency of both the reference cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.A. Tech EscherWyass Flovel Ltd. Vs. M.P.S.E. Board and another, reported in 2010 Arb. W.L.J. 116 (SC), laid down that even in a work contract if there is an arbitration clause, then the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal constituted under the Act, 1983 stands ousted and the reference is to be made under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "the Act, 1996"). Therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, an application on behalf of the applicant was moved in Reference Case No. 1/09 under Section 17- A of the Act, 1983 intimating the Tribunal that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of V.A. Tech Escher 1/Vyass Flovel Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and for passing appropriate orders. However, the Tribunal treating the said application as an application for withdrawing both the reference cases with liberty to approach appropriate Court/Forum under the provisions of the Act, 1996, allowed the application to that extent, but, vide para-8 of the impugned order, refused to grant refund ofthe Courtfee, which was deposited alongwith both the reference cases. It is against this refusal to refund the Court fee, that the present revision petitions have been filed. 3. The dispute arising out of the work contract between the parties was referred for arbitration under Clause 17 of the agreement to the arbitral tribunal and against the order passed by the arbitral tribunal on 3.3.2009, that reference was made under Section 7 of the Act, 1983'totheTribunal. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that when the Tribunal after considering his application under Section 17-A of the Act, 1983 as an application for withdrawal of reference with liberty to file the same before the appropriate Court/Forum under the provisions o'f the Act, 1996, has returned the reference for presentation before the appropriate fsrynLjhen the Tribunal has no ^- jurisdiction to refuse refund of the Court fee paid alon^wiill-'th^ reference. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent has supported the impugned order so far as it relates to non-refund of the Court fee. In support of his contention, learned counsel has submitted photocopies of the judgments in the matters of Mt. Ananti Vs. Chhannu and others, AIR 1930 Allahabad 193 (F.B.); Smt. Sisir Kana Guha and others Vs. Ayakar Grihanirman Samabaya Samity Ltd. and another, AIR 2002 Calcutta 247; Jankan Devi Vs. Smt. Leelan Devi, 2000 AIHC 2424 (H.P.), and Exphar SA and another V& Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. and another, AIR 2004 SC 1682. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record as well as the impugned order. 7. It is not in dispute that an agreement was entered into between the parties relating to a work contract and on arising of a dispute, as per Clause 17 of the agreement, the same was referred to the arbitral tribunal, which passed the order dated 3.3.2009, against which the present applicant has made reference under Section 7 of the Act, 1983 before the Tribunal constituted under the Act, 1983. However, during pendency of both the references, that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of VA. Tech Escher liVyass Flovel Ltd. (supra) came, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "Section 7(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short 'the1983Act') provides as follow?:- "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 appJY_where 7 . pue spejujinquoijoipsunf eq^' 6uipsfqo uoi)E3!|dde p9|y seq jsuoitiisd sqi 'uoipipsunf p >|OB| 01 snp |IE^ 146101 eoueje^ej 'sseo s,j8L|3sg qoei VA 1° wBi] eqi ui 'J3A3MO|-| -loejsp |ELUJOJ SLUOS o( snp IIBJ. isniu sousjs^sj teqi leiiuasso }ou si )i '(q)(z)£S uo!te|n6aJ"j3pun Aqejeqi ptie IIXX J9P.io ^o (|.) 8|m ^o (e) aim-qns p (q) esnep japun iBMBJpqiiM 0} uoissiiujsd 6ui}UEj6 jo^ 'uoissnosip eAoqe ^o 14611 eqi u| •9ouej8^8j qsaj^ 3|U 01 Atjeqii iiiim aousjs^ej aqt ujniej 01 punoj6 tusioiyns si ejeqi ieqi puy BM aseo s.petiLui-i j3AO|j sseA/v\ jeqosg upQi. VA 1° WB\\ 34t "!„ isnqi peAjesqo sei^ jepjo peuBnduji sqi jo 9 '? z sejed ui seq '9661. 'PV 841 ^0 suoisiAojd eqi J8pun Lunjoj/iJnoQ eiBudojdde sqi ajo^aq eiues 94} a|y 0} Apsqii 4}iM aouejajej aqi jo iBMejpqiiM jo^ uoiieoiidde ue SB £861. 'pV 9MUO V-ZI- uoipes Jspun uo^eoiidde pies SL|) 6uiie8Ji 'ieunqui eqi 'J9A9MOH 'sjspjo eteudojdde jo Buissed jo^ peAejd seq pue 'eoueje^j eq} eppsp 0} uoipipsunf 941 8Aeq iou seop '£861 eqt jepun peiniiisuoo 'ieunqui 941 '(ejdns) •p)~i /s/ioy sse//|/| J^?3 yosj. V'/\ ^o jaueiu 941 ui ijnoo 9Luejdns siq.uoH 3W io }^jBpnf eq) p MSIA ui 'ajojajaqi 'ssiped sqi uaaMieq pefnosxs }ueLU9l%6e eqi ui asnep uoiiejiiqje ue si 9J9L|t se ieqi }\ OUIIBLUBUI leunquilpq} ejo^sq £961. 'PV 941 JO V-Zl uoipes JSpun uoiieoiidde ue p9Ao|g, tueoiidde eqi JQJ lesunoo paujea) ')jnoo aLusjdns ' 8|q,uo|-| sqi ^o suoiie/ussqo eAoqe ei)) MSIA ui Buidse^ 'snqi 's ,,'A|6u!pjoooe p|oq s/\/\ -esnep uoiiejiiqje UE si ejeqt ejeqM py 9661 SMI ^q paieedej Aipeiiduji spueis t! inq esne|o uoitejiiqje ou si ejeqi sjsqM ssiidde A|UO (oy £961. 3W ieqi 6uip|oq Aq peziuoLUJEL) sq UBO pv 9661 341 PUE pv £861. 34t 'uoiuido jno u| •spej}uoo >|JOM 01 Bu!ie|9j etndsip ayi Buipnioui seindsip 10 SpUI)| ||B SjeAOO PV 9661. 341 'suou si ejeqi St.''SKwe^t^sv^:^ lueoiidde aqTAq~paiy"ruojie3Jjdde eij) paieej} seq \, l.bz'9'OZ psiBp jepjo si! Aq [Eunqui eq} leq) je3|o si i\ 'eAoqe swio MQIA ui 'sni^i •6 ,;e9^-}jnoo 8L|i ^o punjej Buipejip joj sjaMOd lusjequi a>|OAui 0} jedojd }\ ^uiq) }ou op SM 'sseo tuesejd 8i|t 10 ssoueisiunojio pue spe^ aq) u| 'uojiiied,»qsaj^ Aue 9|y 0} UOISBOOOOU SBM 9J341 •UMeJpq)IMSBM U0!l!19d •. . ' BL|} pue ynoo 34} ^o }no pssiLuojdiuoo SBM JSUBLU SL|} 9SB3 }ei|f U| •)U9J9J4!p 9JG 8SB3 8AOqB 84) ;o sioei 941 'z^s •a-ri-v 9661. ui psiJod9j -d-|/\| io 3}e}Q s//\ e|)|ni<s leieAieqg uyg s/l/\l uo p8oe|d uesq sei^ 'pje69J SIL)} ui 'eoueiisy •jsuoiiiisd sqi oi papun^sj aq pied ae^-pnoo eqi leq} p9pua)uoo seq jsuoi^ad eq} jo^ lesunoQ PBUJBSI sqi '9 •pejinbsj }QU si 'OI./I'ON eseo sousja^sj ui paiy I.'ON'V'I PUB 9seo SW w. s}U9puodssj aqi Aq p9|ij z ON-V| pue I.'ON'V'I uo 'jspjo Aue p Buissed 'sjo^ejeqi 'pesodsip 6uisq 3je sseo aq} ijfoq snq} pue peujniej euraq eje 01./1. 'OU 8SB3 33U9J819J Ul }E\# pUE 9363 Sjt<) Ul uoiijied 94) eouig 'seipeusj siq )|aes o) sesooqo jsuo!}i)sd ei)i sjeqM Lumoj./ijnoo eq} ejo^eq 'aiqeoiidde eq ||eqs py S861. souay pue ..ssnep uo!tej)iqje,, O) }unouje iou soop }U9LU99j6e aij} Ul 3SnE|3 )UBA9|9J 9L|} )eqt uoipsfqo SL)) 9SIBJ 0} A}iunpoddo 3L|i SABLJ stuepuodssy •jeuoiijiad aq} o} paujn^ej aq uoiijisd 941 IB^I }oej!p o) jedojd (i ^uiq} BM 'eouejs^sj ifse^ eiy 0} A)J8qi| L|11M |BMBJp41!M JO^ 8UO £'0|M'V| BU!)B9J) 'ajo^sjaqi 'iumOj./ijnoo jedojd ejo^sq Buiiy jo^ uoi}!)ad 9L|i ujniej 0} SAey ||IM SM ||!}s 'uoitoipsunf ou 6uiAeq si |eunqui )eq) p|oq BM j.| •eoueje^ej ijsej^ eiy 01 AlJeqil MUM uoititsd 94} jo IBMEJPLDIM joj ps|y auo se 'ieunqujL 34} ^o uoipipsunf eqi 6uiBu8||eqo J9uo]i!i3d 941 Aq p8|y '£'O|M'V| uo!}eoj|dde (GSJI BM sseo 34) jo seouE^SLunojio under Section 17-A of the Act, 1983, for exercising inherenTpowers, 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 1/.-4. Tech Escher 1/Uyass 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 adjudicated because he has a remedy under the provisions of the Act, 1996. As such, the case laws cited by learned counsei 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 Court fee, there is no doubt that the Tribunal has committed a grave error of law and therefore, the impugned orderdated 20.5.2011, so far as it relates to refusal to refund the Court fee, cannot be sustained. 10.1n the resuit, both the revision petitions are aliowed. 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.Quddysi Judge Sd/. G-M^uddin <ge n Ifiil.a.r