^-[ IE BFM '^- ^..••'^'aji (J) BEFORE THEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT^ILASPUR w -S*T .P.TNO. fcto0' OF 2010 PETITIONER / ; Gammon India Limited 'Gammon House',VeerSavarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 tMaharashtra), Through its Head - Wprks Survey, ShriJ. L.Ashar,SonofShri L. P. Bhatia, Aged about 58 years, Resident of C-27, Navyug Mansion,Naushir Bharucha Marg, Mumbai-400025 (Maharashtra) Versus RESPONDENTS ^^ v^>^ ^w^^ 'Y^y ^^>y ?• \?-""" '^'.^ ^' ^l. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary t6 Government, PublicWorks Department, Mantralaya, Raipur (C. G.) ^2. The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. B.&R. Division, Korba (C. G.) • 227 WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE226^0FCONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER.DIRECTIONS. ETC |||||:,:.!.1:1; -fri^-v> HIGH COBRTOFCHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR WRITPETITION fC) N0.6604 OF 2010 PETITIONER Gammonlndia Limited ^^EQNDENTS Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Another Post for pronouncement of the order on 26 dav of July, 201 1 Sd/-"..-..,, SatisliK.Agnihotri Judge ?S'":^<A '%- :»"., 9 ^^' yg' •i.:::;i-<^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N06604 OF 2Q10 PETITIONER Gammon India Limited RESPONDENTS Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Anand Dixit and Shri Ashok Mishra, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. OR D E R (Delivered on this-ag day ofJuly, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner prays (i) for setting aside the impugned order dated 30-9-2010 (Annexure - P/4) passed by the Chhattisgarh Arbitration Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal') in Ref. case No (Gammon India Ltd: v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Another); (ii) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to the remedy of arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1 996 (for short 'the Act, 1996"); (iii) to declare that the time period spent before the Tribunal shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation in the . arbitration proceedings under the Act, 1996; and (iv) to issue orders for refund of Court fee anripunting to Rs.6,98,714/-, which was deRosited for ins^ituting refgrence case beforethe Tribunal. 2. Tt')e faci^, of the case, in bn^f, ^as pi'cijected by the petitiqner, fQr Eicljudicatiph of^e dispute, are ^hiaf the petitioner is a company incorporated 4nc)ef Vr\e prcfvisions of^hs Gompwies Act, 1956 and the petitioner ts ehgageid |r) t]")@ Pffsiness of'xrivil construction. The petitioner was awgrded the work of construetion of road bridge across river Hasdeo, Korba, by the r6spondent authorities. A6c6rclirigly;~the 'petitioner 'enterecr^^an agi'eemeht witfcthe unified.. Ui.^!-;:-.—,. B-'' ;".;3>'';•.') '^ ' ^JJ "-vr'jf' State of Madhya Pradesh. However, afterbifurcation of the State, the liability of payment of dues was transferred to the State of Chhattisgarh. According fo the petitioner, clause 67 ofthe general conditions of contract provides for an arbitration clause. After completion of certain work, some disputes arose between the parties; therefore, a reference caseNo.5/2008 was submitted before the Tribunal on 7-2-2008 by the petitioner for adjudication of the disputes vide Annexure - P/2. Subsequently, the petitioner has moved anapplication (Annexure - P/3) before the Tribunal for decision on the issue of jurisdiction. In the said application, the petitioner has referred the decision ofthe Supreme Court rendered in V/l Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. M.P.S.E. Board and Another . The application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 30-9-2010 (Annexure - P/4). Hence, this petition. . Shri Dixit & Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petjtioner, would submit that the Tribunal committed gross error in Igw |>y h|olc)jng that ttie petitjpner has no r|ght to ^eek decision on ttig ot:)jection relating to jurisdietion of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also committed gross error in law by ignoring thewell settled principles of law lajd dpwn by the Supreitne.CQyrtin iVA Tect] Esc^r M^ass Flovel Ltd. (sypra). Shri Dixit would further submit that aft^f relyingon the de^jsion of th^ Supreffie Cowt H\ VA TffQ^ Escher Wyass Flovel Ud (sypra),the Rivisipn Bench qf thj? Cpyrt hgs considered and passed the order in Ws. R.S. Bajwa & CQmpany y. Stateof Chhattisgarh& Others2. On the other hand, Shri Bhatia, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State, would submit that the petitioner, who had 12010Arb.W.L.J.116(SC) 2 WA No.208 of 2008 (decided on 27-8-2010) r!::"n! •paquosejd sq ABLU SB 33} qons Aq -peiyBdiuoooe sq ||eqs eousje^sj sqi (e) 'S}U3UiJSAB 941 6U|A(U8A (lABpy^B ueAq psyoddns sq |]BL|S pue psquossjd sq ABLU se Lujoj qons ui dn umejp sq ||Bqs aouaiapj •qons', (e) f; ^ ,.- ^-.K 'ietjnq!-il Syioi ^lhdsip stfl BliiluM Ui jaiffii 'IE>U .ip^sstttejo uoi^iiqje kie suj^iuoo ^liaujgaJfiB Syi'JSI.IlSllM^pei Stj^ ^O 8A!)38d§&UI ||BLJs' jioej)Uo6 "S)|JOAA i ^ Aytect UsiL|}ia (j.Hisiinqyl <q aaUAiaiAy -Ai, : jspun se speSJ eg6l. 'luBAIuiljpv SMUO / uoitbsg 'ieunqjJl &q} ot isejiuoo S)|JOM ui 9}ndsip aqip eouaj8j9j jo^sspiAojd yoiqm '(,,£961. 'LueAiuiqpv S4t,, voqs joj) eggl. 'iueAiuiqpv uejoiiqpv uieqisBAqpeifti 4je6s!uet)qo sqi jo z uoipsg y> suoisiAOjd sq} ^im souepjoooe ui suop SBM aiues sqj. '800Z-Z-Z "o s}ndsip 94} puoiieoipnfpe jo^ ^ss}! j9uoi}!i8d sqi Aq speuj SBM souejatsj aq} }eqi siqetndsipui si i| •oiejsq} pspueddesiuaiunoop ai|} pue sBuipesid sqt pesmsd 'ssijjed sqi JQJ Buuesdde issunoo psujesi pjeeq eAeii | •pessiiusip sq ABIU uogiisd sq) pue^j^i/ue 0} p8|i!ius iou si jsuoiiiied 94} 'sjo^sjaqj. •aseo lusssjd si^ j(p spej 941 o} 8|qeo!|ddB tou SJB 'A|SAipsdssj '(ejdns) Aueduioy y e/M.^p 's'tJ 's/cv S (ejdns) 'pn /s-io^/ sseA/i/i jaqos^ yos^ * y/\ ui psjspusj iJnoQ siqi se ||3m se ijnoo SLusjdng 8t|t 10 suoisiosp sq} leqt iiiuqns jaqjjni p|noM eiieqg uys '/"B| qiiM souepjoooe ui pue jedojd y isnf si jepjo psuBndiui sq} 'snqi 'ujnjoj 8}eudojdde eqi qoeojdde 0} pue sousjsjsj sqi MejpiiiiM 01 Aysqii ie s! jsuoqiisd sqi usqi 'uoipipsunf ou seq |Bunquj. eqi leqi s|ss^ jeuoii^ed SL|} i! )B4i psAjasqo seq icunquj. sqi 'jspjo psuBndLui sqi u| •leunqui eq} ^o uoijoipsunf SL)} sBue||eL|o 0} A|jed siisoddo SL|} jo^ si}! pue |eunqui aqi j.o uoiioipsunf sq) 3}ndsip IOUUBO 'eousjs^ej e apeiu \ (4) Every reference shall be accompanied by such documents or other evidence and by such other fees for service orexecution of processes as may be prescribed. (5) On receipt of the reference under sub-section (1), if the Tribunal » satisfied that the reference isa frt case for adjudication, it may admit the reference but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied it may summarily reject the reference after recording reasons therefor." 8. The dispute with regard to applicability of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 vis-a-vis the Act, 1996 enacted by the Parliament, came into consideration before the Supreme Court in VA Tech Escher Wyass Hovel Utf. (supra). The Supreme Court held that the Act, 1996 covers all kinds of acts including the dispute relating fo work contracts. The Supreme Court, accordingly, held as under: "In ouropinion, the 1983 Act and the 1996 Act can be harmonised by holding that the 1983 Act only applies where there i? no ai-tiitratipn clause but itstands impliedlyrepealed bythe 1996 Act where there is an arbitration clause. We hold accordingly." 9. Thus, the ratio as laid down by the Supreme Courtis clear that if there is an arbitration clause even in the disputes relating works contract, the provisions of the Act, 1996 would prevail and tp that extent the provisions of the Adhiniyam 1983 (State Act), which is enacted by the State Legislature, stands impliedly repealed. Thus, clause to the extent that "whether the agreement contains an anbffrafon c/ause" stands repealed tp theextent that if the agreement contains arbitration clause, the sameis not referable to the Tribunal underthe provisions oftheAdhiniyam, 1983. 10. The Division Bench of this Court M/s. R.S. Bajwa & Company (&upra) observed as under: •*-»>-. •uoipipsunf ou BUIABLI ys puno.i6 si|t uo souejejej 9L|i >|oeq euiujnisJ jo^ uoiieoiidde ou si sjsqi USAS sindsip sqi sppep }ouueo |eunqui sqi 'pepnUsp si 8sne|0 uoiiejiiqje'ue si sraq} Qjsqm PBJIUOOS)|JOM p loodfesj ui sOueJs^aJ ^o ttlspo at<t t)t letihcjtjl si|}jo ^. • ..•-;;'^ •:;':r':. _ . ' ::..' .••:: ' . • '.':.;.' rl. ;'ii.i:;i;.. 1.; L,:li ii ••aoipipsunrei.it sOU&'Aijed JSI.DIS Aq apeiu uasq ateLj aitiaJfe)d.l;6i.iili ~^\. •(eJdris) •l^i ^WH ssfe^/vi jet/itSg Qoat ^ Dj tirtdo &tUaiyns Ai|i Aq umop pie| OftBJ sqi 01 AJBJIUOO si siues sqipue loejjoo idU si leunquj. si)i p Buipuu sqi •|eunqui 941 p uoiioipsunf eiji uoiisenb 0} iqBu ou seq jeneiu 941 psjjejsj seq oqM jeuoiised SLJI leql punojB 9L|i U6 jeuo!i!i8d eqt ys uoiieoiidde 941 psssiujsip |eunqui sqi '£1. •ssne|o uoitBJtiqje joj sspiAojd pejiuoo ys suoiiipuoo iBJeusG sqi ys [.'/S ssne|0 'sseo }UBISU! 341 ul '9661. '1°V S41 y suoisiAojd aq} Aq psujSAo6 eq]|eqs eujes SL|I pue ssnep uoiiejiiqje oyiosds e s! aj34t ejsqM pejiuoo S^|JOM . oi uoiie|8j ui aindsip sq} jspisuoo 0} uoipipsunf ou seq |eunqui sqi •^[. '£861.'iueAiuiqpysqiJspun leunqui sqt^o uoiioipsunf aqi Buiuoiissnb uoiteoiidde ue pSAoai jeuo!i!i8d 9qi'(ejdns)pn IQAOH sseA^/[jai{osg yoaj^ v/\ ui ynoo auisjdng eqi Aq ME| p uoiiisod sqip uoiiejepsp841 jeye 'jeyesjeqi pue £861. 'LueAiuiqpv 841 p suoisiAojd eqi jepun |eunqui 941 oi e}ndsip eqi jspj 01 uasoqoseqjsuoiiiisd sqi 'pueq uo eseo aqi u| •TI ,,'Aii||nu e sq o} pies eq louueo JOtBfliqjv 841 Aq pessed pje/uvp sqi pue (ejdns) 90/Z1?ze'ON lesddv |IA!O ui ijnoo xsdy 8|q,uo|-| sqi Aq piay se 9661. 'PV 8141 ^q ps|esd8j A[pS!|du»| spueis eseo ieqi ui £861. 'ujeAiuiqp^f sqi puE s|qBoi|dde eq p|noM g661. 'PV 8411° suoisiAOjd 'iueLusejBe SL|I ui 'eAoqe peionb se 33 ssneio •s'! asnep uoitBJijqje UB SBM sjeqi souis ieqi pisq si l! 'eAoqe pessnosip ssoue}SLunojp pue spej sqi-jo siseq sqi UQ •91.,, 15. If the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, there is no question to retain the Court fees, which was deposited on wrong understanding of provisions of law, which stood clarified by the Supreme Court subsequently, as the effect of repeal would be with retrospective effectfrom the day, Act, 1996 came into force. 16. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is allowed. It is ordered that: (i) the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question, as there is an arbitration clause in the general conditions of contract. (ii) the provisions of the Act, 1996 shall be applicable to the dispute in question. (iii) the Tribunal shall refund the Court fees, after adjusting the expenses incurred by the Tribunal, before the application objecting the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, was made by the petitioner, as the reference is not maintainable before the Tribunal under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1983. 17. There shall be no order asto costs. Gowri Sd/-::"£1.^: •^^^"teotrl: '" Judge / tl U