Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 974 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.907/2011)
M.P.Rural Road Development Authority & Anr. ...Appellant(s)
- Versus -
M/s. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers & Cont. ...Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
GANGULY, J.
1.Leave granted.
2.The question which falls for consideration in this
appeal is whether the provision of Madhya Pradesh
Madhyasthan Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter,
‘M.P. Act’) which statutorily provides for the
parties to the Works Contract to refer all disputes
1
to the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under
Section 7 of the Act will continue to operate in
view of the provisions of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘A.C. Act 1996’)
which is a Central Act, subsequently enacted.
3.The facts leading to the aforesaid controversy be
noted first.
4.The appellant-Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development
Authority and Anr., impugning the judgment of the
High Court dated 8.9.2010 in this appeal, entered
into a ‘Works Contract’ with the respondent for
construction and maintenance of Rural Road Package
No.1958, District Jhabua.
5.Clause 24 of the Contract contains the ‘Dispute
Redress Mechanism’ and Clause 24.1 of the same
provides as under:
2
“24.1 If any dispute or difference of any
kind what-so-ever shall arise in connection
with or arising out of this Contract or the
execution of work of maintenance of the Works
thereunder, whether before its commencement
or during the progress of Works or after the
termination, abandonment or breach of the
Contract, it shall, in the first instance, be
referred for settlement to competent
authority, described along with their powers
in the Contract Data, above the rank of the
Engineer. The competent authority shall,
within a period of forty five days after
being requested in writing by the Contractor
to do so, convey his decision to the
Contractor. Such decision in respect of every
matter so referred shall, subject to review
as hereinafter provided, be final and binding
upon the Contract. In case the Works is
already in progress, the Contractor shall
proceed with the execution of the Works,
including maintenance thereof, pending
receipt of the decision of the competent
authority as aforesaid, with all due
diligence.”
6.Under the ‘M.P. Act’ “dispute” has statutorily been
defined under Section 2(d):
“2(d) “dispute” means claim of ascertained
money valued at Rupees 50,000 or more
relating to any difference arising out of
the execution or non-execution of a works
contract or part thereof”
3
7.“Works Contract” has also been defined under Section
2(i) of the M.P. Act:
“2(i) works contract” means an agreement in
writing for the execution of any work
relating to construction, repair or
maintenance of any building or
superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir,
tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert,
factory, workshop, powerhouse, transformers
or such other works of the State Government
or Public Undertaking as the State
Government may, by notification, specify in
this behalf at any of its stages, entered
into by the State Government or by an
official of the State Government or Public
Undertaking or its official for and on
behalf of such Public Undertaking and
includes an agreement for the supply of
goods or material and all other matters
relating to the execution of any of the said
works”
8.“Reference to Tribunal” is statutorily provided
under Section 7 of the M.P. Act:
“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.
(2) Such reference shall be drawn up in
such form as may be prescribed and shall be
supported by an affidavit verifying the
averments.
(3) The reference shall be accompanied
by such fee as may be prescribed.
4
(4) Every reference shall be accompanied
by such documents or other evidence and by
such other fees for service or execution of
processes as may be prescribed.
(5) On receipt of the reference under
sub-section (1), if the Tribunal is
satisfied that the reference is a fit 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.”
9.From a perusal of Section 7, it is clear that the
nature of the dispute between the parties in the
instant case is covered by the definition under
Section 2(d) read with Section 2(1). As such under
Section 7 such a dispute has to be statutorily
referred to Tribunal set up under the M.P. Act.
10. The case of the appellant is that in view of
several breaches in Works Contract by the
respondent, the appellant terminated the Works
Contract and encashed the bank guarantee furnished
by the respondent on 25.6.2008.
5
11. Thereafter, on 29.8.2008, the respondent
submitted a representation to the appellant against
the encashment of bank guarantee. Prior to that on
5.8.2008, respondent filed a Writ Petition No.
4491/2008 challenging the encashment of bank
guarantee and the writ petition was disposed of with
a direction that the bank guarantee may not be
encashed till the disposal of the representation.
Thereafter, on 4.6.2009 the representation of the
respondent was rejected after giving the appellant a
personal hearing.
12. In the pending dispute, the respondent
submitted additional claim on 24.2.2010 and
requested the appellant to appoint an Arbitrator for
adjudicating the dispute between the parties. On
24.4.2010, the appellant replied that Clause 25 of
the Works Contract specifically provides for
adjudication of disputes by the Arbitral Tribunal
under the M.P. Act.
6
13.
Then on 24.6.2010 respondent filed an application
under Section 11 of A.C. Act 1996 for appointment of
an Arbitrator before the High Court. On 8.9.2010,
High Court allowed the application of the respondent
and appointed an Arbitrator by placing reliance on a
decision of this Court in Va Tech Escher Wyass
Flovel Ltd . Vs. MPSE Board & another - Civil Appeal
No. 3746 and 3747 of 2005.
14.
In the case of Va Tech (supra), this Court after
referring to both the M.P. Act and the A.C. Act
1996, held that the M.P. Act applies only where
there is no arbitration clause and this Court
further held that the M.P. Act stands impliedly
repealed by the A.C. Act 1996 where there is an
arbitration clause.
15.
Facts in connection with the Va Tech (supra) were
that Va Tech was awarded a works contract by the
M.P. State Electricity Board and there was an
arbitration clause in the agreement.
7
16. Va Tech filed an application under Section 9
of the A.C. Act 1996 which was rejected by the
learned Additional District Judge and that order was
also upheld by the High Court.
17. Then Va Tech filed a special leave petition
before this Court. This Court noting the provision
of Section 7 of the M.P. Act came to the aforesaid
finding and ultimately held that the judgment of the
High Court in Va Tech cannot be sustained and opined
that application under Section 9 of A.C. Act 1996 is
maintainable. The exact reasoning recorded by this
Court in Va Tech is as follows:
“In our opinion, the 1983 Act and the 1996
Act can be harmonised 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.
Hence, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained and we hold that the application
under Section 9 of the 1996 Act was
maintainable.”
8
18. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant submitted that the
Division Bench of this Court, while coming to the
aforesaid finding, has not noticed the relevant
provision of the M.P. Act as well as the relevant
provisions of A.C. Act 1996 and as such the same
judgment was rendered ‘per incuriam’.
19.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that
another Division Bench of this Court in a case in
which the Presiding Judge was common with the Bench
which rendered the Va Tech (supra) ruling almost in
a situation identical with Va Tech issued notice and
stayed the arbitration proceedings.
20. In another case a Division Bench of this Court
presided over by the same learned Judge who gave the
Va Tech ruling passed the following order:
“This petition has been filed against the
th
judgment and order dated 11 March, 2011
9
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Gwalior Bench in Arbitration Case No.4 of
2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied on a decision of this Court in Civil
th
Appeal No. 3746 of 2005 decided on 14
January, 2010.
We are of the opinion that the aforesaid
decision is distinguishable because in the
present case the arbitration clause itself
mentions that the arbitration will be by the
Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal. Hence,
in this case arbitration has to be done by
the Tribunal.
The Special leave petition is dismissed.”
21.
Relying on these two subsequent orders in the
instant case and in Ravikant Bansal vs. M.P. Rural
Road Development Authority and Anr . – SLP(C)
No.18867 of 2011, Mr. Venugopal, the learned senior
counsel submitted that subsequent Division Bench
presided over by the same learned Judge who gave the
Va Tech ruling has not followed the ratio in the
case of Va Tech.
10
22.
The learned counsel said so to justify his
contention that the decision in Va Tech (supra) was
rendered per incuriam.
23. If this Court looks at Section 2(4) of A.C.
Act 1996, it will appear that Part-I of A.C. Act
1996, which is from Section 2 to Section 43, shall,
except sub-section 1 of Sections 40, 41 and 43,
apply to every arbitration under any other enactment
for the time being in force where the arbitration
was pursuant to an arbitration agreement except
insofar as the provisions of this Part i.e. Part-I
are inconsistent with the other enactment or with
any other rule made thereunder.
24. Similar provision relating to statutory
arbitration was also there in Section 46 of
Arbitration Act, 1940. Section 46 is set out below:
“46. Application of Act to statutory
arbitration – The provisions of this Act,
except sub-section (1) of Sec. 6 and Secs.
7, 12, 36 and 37, shall apply to every
11
arbitration under any other enactment for
the time being in force, as if the
arbitration were pursuant to an arbitration
agreement and as if that other enactment
were an arbitration agreement, except in so
far as this Act is inconsistent with that
other enactment or with any rules made
thereunder.
25. If this Court compares the provisions of the
M.P. Act with A.C. Act 1996 then the Court finds
that the provisions of M.P. Act are inconsistent
with the provisions of A.C. Act 1996. The M.P. Act
is a special law providing for statutory arbitration
in the State of Madhya Pradesh even in the absence
of arbitration agreement. Under the provisions of
A.C. Act 1996 in the absence of an arbitration
agreement, arbitration is not possible. There is
also difference in the formation of arbitration
tribunal as is clear from Section 2(1)(d) of A.C.
Act 1996. Again under A.C. Act 1996, arbitral
tribunal is defined under Section 2(1)(d) as a sole
arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. But under M.P.
Act such a tribunal is created under Sections 3 and
4 of the Act. And under the M.P. Act dispute has a
special meaning as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of
12
the Act whereas dispute has not been defined under
the A.C. Act 1996.
26. It is clear from its long title that the M.P.
Act provides for the establishment of a tribunal to
arbitrate in disputes to which the State Government
or a public undertaking [wholly or substantially
owned or controlled by the State Government], is a
party, and for matters incidental thereto or
connected therewith. The structure of the tribunal
under the M.P. Act is also different from the
structure of a tribunal under the A.C. Act 1996. It
is clear from Section 4 of the M.P. Act that the
composition of tribunal and their qualification is
statutorily provided which is set out below:
“ 4. Chairman and Members of Tribunal and
their qualifications.- (1) Subject to sub-
section (2) and (3), the State Government
may appoint a chairman and as many members
to the Tribunal as it may consider
necessary.
(1-a) The State Government may, in
consultation with the Chairman,
designate one of the Judicial Members as the
Vice-Chairman who in the event of occurrence
of any vacancy in the office of the Chairman
13
by reason of his death, resignation, leave
or otherwise, shall during such vacancy,
discharge the functions of the Chairman.
(2) No person shall be appointed as
Chairman of the Tribunal, unless he is or
has been a Judge of a High Court.
(3) No person shall be qualified for
appointment as a member of the Tribunal,
unless-
(i) he is or has been a District Judge of
not less than seven years standing: or
(ii) he is or has been a Revenue Commissioner
or has held a post equivalent to the rank of
Revenue Commissioner for a total period of
not less than five years, or
(iii)he is or has been:-
(a) Chief Engineer in the service of the
State Government in Public Works,
Irrigation or Public Health Engineering
Department; or
(b) a Chief Engineer in the service of the
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board; or
(c) a Senior Deputy Accountant General of
the Office of the Accountant General,
Madhya Pradesh,
for a period of not less than five years.
Provided that in the case of clause
(iii), in exceptional circumstances, the
State Government may, relax the prescribed
minimum period of five years to three
years.”
14
27. The term of office and salaries and allowances
are also statutorily provided under Sections 5 and 6
of the M.P. Act. Section 8 provides for the
procedure to be followed by the tribunal on receipt
of reference and Section 9 provides for the
Constitution of Benches and Chairman’s power of
distribution of business. Under Section 16(2) of the
M.P. Act there is a time limit for giving the Award
which is absent in A.C. Act 1996. Section 17-A of
the M.P. Act confers inherent power on the Arbitral
tribunal to make orders as may be necessary for the
ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process
of the tribunal. Section 17-B also provides for
power conferred on the tribunal for correction of
clerical or arithmetical mistakes. No such power is
given to an arbitral tribunal under A.C. Act 1996.
Section 19 of the M.P. Act gives High Court the suo
motu power of revision. The High Court has also been
given the power of revision to be exercised on an
application made by an aggrieved party within three
months of the award. While doing so, the High Court
15
is to act like a revisional court under Section 115
of the CPC.
28. It is clear from the aforesaid enumeration of
the statutory provision that under the M.P. Act the
parties’ autonomy in the choice of arbitral tribunal
is not there.
29.
In State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Anshuman
Shukla – (2008) 7 SCC 487, this Court while
referring to the M.P. Act and dealing with the
nature of the arbitral tribunal constituted under
the said Act held that the said Act is a special Act
and provides for compulsory arbitration. It provides
for a reference and the tribunal has been given the
power of rejecting the reference at the threshold.
It also held that the M.P. Act provides for a
special limitation and fixes a time limit for
passing an award. It has also been held that Section
14 of the M.P. Act provides that the award can be
challenged under special circumstances and Section
16
17 provides for finality of the award,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
in any other law relating to arbitration. All these
features of the Act were pointed by this Court in
Anshuman Shukla (supra) to show that there is
inconsistency between the provisions of A.C. Act
1996 and those of the M.P. Act. In para 28 of the
judgment, this Court while referring to the
provisions of M.P. Act held:
“ The provisions of the Act referred to
hereinbefore clearly postulate that the State
of Madhya Pradesh has created a separate
forum for the purpose of determination of
disputes arising inter alia out of the works
contract. The Tribunal is not one which can
be said to be a domestic tribunal. The
Members of the Tribunal are not nominated by
the parties. The disputants do not have any
control over their appointment. The Tribunal
may reject a reference at the threshold. It
has the power to summon records. It has the
power to record evidence. Its functions are
not limited to one Bench. The Chairman of the
Tribunal can refer the disputes to another
Bench. Its decision is final. It can award
costs. It can award interests. The finality
of the decision is fortified by a legal
fiction created by making an award a decree
of a civil court. It is executable as a
decree of a civil court. The award of the
Arbitral Tribunal is not subject to the
provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
17
The provisions of the said Acts have no
application.”
(para 28, page 497 of the report)
30.
It is clear, therefore, that in view of the
aforesaid finding of a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court on the distinct feature of an arbitral
tribunal under the said M.P. Act the provisions of
M.P. Act are saved under Section 2(4) of A.C. Act
1996. This Court while rendering the decision in Va
Tech (supra) has not either noticed the previous
decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Anshuman Shukla (supra) or the provisions of Section
2(4) of A.C. Act 1996. Therefore, we are constrained
to hold that the decision of this Court in Va Tech
(supra) was rendered per incuriam.
31. This was the only point argued before us by
the learned counsel for the appellant.
32. The principle of per incuriam has been very
succinctly formulated by the Court of Appeal in
18
Young vs. Bristol Aeroplane Company, Limited
reported in 1944 (1) K.B. 718.
33. Lord Greene, Master of Rolls formulated the
principles on the basis of which a decision can be
said to have been rendered ‘per incuriam’. The
principles are:
“Where the court has construed a statute or a
rule having the force of a statute its
decision stands on the same footing as any
other decision on a question of law, but
where the court is satisfied that an earlier
decision was given in ignorance of the terms
of a statute or a rule having the force of a
statute the position is very different. It
cannot, in our opinion, be right to say that
in such a case the court is entitled to
disregard the statutory provision and is
bound to follow a decision of its own given
when that provision was not present to its
mind. Cases of this description are examples
of decisions given per incuriam.”
(Page 729)
34.
The decision in Young (supra) was subsequently
approved by the House of Lords in Young vs. Bristol
Aeroplane Company, Limited reported in 1946 Appeal
Cases 163 at page 169 of the report.
19
35. Lord Viscount Simon in the House of Lords
expressed His Lordship’s agreement with the views
expressed by the Lord Greene, the Master of Rolls in
the Court of Appeal on the principle of per incuriam
(see the speech of Lord Viscount Simon at page 169
of the report).
36.
Those principles have been followed by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in The Bengal
Immunity Company Limited vs. The State of Bihar and
others reported in 1955 (2) SCR 603 [See the
discussion in pages 622 and 623 of the report].
37.
The same principle has been reiterated by Lord
Evershed, Master of Rolls, in Morelle Ld. vs.
Wakeling & another [(1955) 2 QB 379 at page 406].
The principle has been stated as followed:
“…As a general rule the only cases in which
decisions should be held to have been given
per incuriam are those of decisions given in
ignorance or forgetfulness of some
20
inconsistent statutory provision or of some
authority binding on the court concerned; so
that in such cases some part of the decision
or some step in the reasoning on which it is
based is found, on that account, to be
demonstrably wrong…….”
(page 406)
38.
In the case of State of U.P. and another vs.
Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and another reported
in (1991) 4 SCC 139, this Court held the doctrine of
‘per incuriam’ in practice means ‘per ignoratium’
and noted that English Courts have developed this
principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis
and referred to the decision in the case of Bristol
Aeroplane Co. Ltd. (supra). The learned Judges also
made it clear that the same principle has been
approved and adopted by this Court while
interpreting Article 141 of the Constitution (see
para 41).
39.
In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs.
Gurnam Kaur reported in (1989) 1 SCC 101, a three-
Judge Bench of this Court explained this principle
21
of per incuriam very elaborately in paragraph 11 at
page 110 of the report and in explaining the
principle of per incuriam the learned Judges held:
“……A decision should be treated as given per
incuriam when it is given in ignorance of the
terms of a statute or of a rule having the
force of a statute…….”
40. In paragraph 12 the learned Judges observed as
follows:
“……One of the chief reasons for the doctrine
of precedent is that a matter that has once
been fully argued and decided should not be
allowed to be reopened. The weight accorded
to dicta varies with the type of dictum. Mere
casual expressions carry no weight at all.
Not every passing expression of a judge,
however eminent, can be treated as an ex
cathedra statement, having the weight of
authority.”
41.
Following the aforesaid principles, this Court is
constrained to hold that the decision in Va Tech
(supra), having been rendered in per incuriam,
cannot be accepted as a precedent to decide the
controversy in this case.
22
42. In reply the learned counsel for the
respondent only submitted that the M.P. Act is
repugnant to A.C. Act 1996 since the same is a later
Act made by Parliament. The learned counsel
referred to the provisions of Article 254 of the
Constitution. The learned counsel also urged that in
view of the provision of Section 85 of A.C. Act
1996, the M.P. Act stands impliedly repealed.
43. The said argument cannot be accepted. The
provision for repeal under Section 85 of A.C. Act
1996 does not show that there is any express repeal
of the M.P. Act. Apart from that the provision of
Section 2(4) of A.C. Act clearly militates against
the aforesaid submissions.
44. The argument of repugnancy is also not
tenable. Entry 13 of the Concurrent List in the
VIIth Schedule of the Constitution runs as follows:
23
“13. Civil procedure, including all matters
included in the Code of Civil Procedure at
the commencement of this Constitution,
limitation and arbitration.”
45. In view of the aforesaid Entry, the State
Government is competent to enact laws in relation to
arbitration. The M.P. Act of 1983 was made when the
previous Arbitration Act of 1940 was in the field.
That Act of 1940 was a Central Law. Both the Acts
operated in view of Section 46 of 1940 Act.
46. The M.P. Act 1983 was reserved for the assent of the
President and admittedly received the same on
17.10.1983 which was published in the Madhya Pradesh
Gazette Extraordinary dated 12.10.1983. Therefore,
the requirement of Article 254(2) of the
Constitution was satisfied. Thus, M.P. Act of 1983
prevails in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter,
A.C. Act 1996 was enacted by Parliament repealing
the earlier laws of arbitration of 1940. It has also
been noted that A.C. Act 1996 saves the provisions
24
of M.P. Act 1983 under sub-sections 2(4) and 2(5)
thereof. Therefore, there cannot be any repugnancy.
(See the judgment of this Court in T. Barai vs.
Henry Ah Hoe and another reported in AIR 1983 SC
150). In this connection the observations made by
the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of
M. Karunanidhi vs. Union of India and another
reported in (1979) 3 SCC 431 are very pertinent and
the following observations are excerpted:
“……It is, therefore, clear that in view of
this clear intention of the legislature
there can be no room for any argument that
the State Act was in any way repugnant to
the Central Acts. We have already pointed
out from the decisions of the Federal Court
and this Court that one of the important
tests to find out as to whether or not there
is repugnancy is to ascertain the intention
of the legislature regarding the fact that
the dominant legislature allowed the
subordinate legislature to operate in the
same field pari passu the State Act.”
(para 37, page 450)
47. It is clear from the aforesaid observation
that in instant case the latter Act made by the
Parliament i.e. A.C. Act 1996 clearly showed an
25
intention to the effect that the State Law of
Arbitration i.e. the M.P. Act should operate in the
State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of certain
specified types of arbitrations which are under the
M.P. Act 1983. This is clear from Sections 2(4) and
2(5) of A.C. Act 1996. Therefore, there is no
substance in the argument of repugnancy and is
accordingly rejected.
48.
Therefore, appeal is allowed and the judgment of the
High Court which is based on the reasoning of Va
Tech (supra) is set aside. This Court holds the
decision in Va Tech (supra) has been rendered in per
incuriam. In that view of the matter the arbitration
proceeding may proceed under M.P. Act of 1983 and
not under A.C. Act 1996.
49. There will be no order as to costs.
.......................J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi
26
January 24, 2012
27
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.974 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.907/2011)
M.P.Rural Road Development
Authority & Anr. ...Appellant(s)
- Versus -
M/s. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers & Cont. ...Respondent(s)
J U D G E M E N T
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. While concurring and endorsing the reasonings assigned in
the judgement of learned Justice Ganguly, I propose to add and thus
partly dissent on certain aspects involved in the instant appeal which
would have a bearing on the relief granted to the respondent by the High
Court which appointed an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 for adjudication of the dispute in regard to cancellation of the
works contract between the contesting parties therein.
28
3. In this context, Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh
Madhyasthan Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘M.P. Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1983’) needs to be reiterated which itself
lays down as follows:
“ 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.”
4. On perusal of the aforesaid provision enumerated under
Section 7, it is explicitly clear that the matter in the event of existence of a
dispute between the parties in certain categories of cases where the State
of Madhya Pradesh is a contracting party, the dispute shall be referred in
writing to the tribunal irrespective of the fact whether the agreement
contains an arbitration clause or not. From this provision it is clearly
apparent that reference of any dispute to the tribunal postulates an
existence of a works contract and the definition of ‘works contract’ under
Section 2 (i) of the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1983, it has clearly and
unequivocally been specified as to what is a ‘works contract’ in relation to
which the dispute is required to be referred in writing to the tribunal. We
may therefore meticulously recollect the definition of ‘works contract’
which lays down as follows:-
“works contract” means an agreement in writing for the
execution of any work relating to construction, repair or
29
maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal,
reservoir, tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert, factory workshop,
powerhouse, transformers or such other works of the State
Government or Public Undertaking as the State Government
may, by notification, specify in this behalf at any of its stages,
entered into by the State Government or by an official of the
State Government or Public Undertaking or its official for and on
behalf of such Public Undertaking and includes an agreement for
the supply of goods or material and all other matters relating to
the execution of any of the said works.”
5. Thus on a perusal of the definition of ‘works contract’, it is
manifestly clear that while the ‘works contract’ means an agreement
pertaining to matters relating to the execution of any of the work
enumerated in the definition of ‘works contract’, the same does not
include the dispute pertaining to termination, cancellation or repudiation
of works contract and the entire nature of transaction laid down therein
relates to disputes which arise out of execution of the nature of work
specified in the ‘works contract’. However, the question whether the
‘works contract’ has been legally repudiated and rightly cancelled or not is
the question or dispute pertaining to termination of works contract has
not been incorporated even remotely within the definition of ‘works
contract’. In view of this, the legal and logical consequence which can be
reasonably drawn from the definition of ‘works contract’ would be, that if
there is a dispute between the contracting parties for any reason relating
to works contract which include execution of any work, relating to
construction, repair or maintenance of any building or super-structure,
30
dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert, factory,
workshop, power house, transformers or such other works of the State
Government or Public Undertaking including an agreement for the
supply of goods or material and all other matters relating to the
execution of any of the said works, the same would fall within the ambit of
the definition of ‘works contract’ and hence all disputes pertaining or
arising out of execution of the works contract will have to be referred to
the M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal as envisaged under Section 7 of the
Act of 1983. Hence, in addition to the reasons assigned in the judgment
and order of learned Brother Justice Ganguly, disputes arising out of
execution of works contract has to be referred to the M.P. State Arbitration
Tribunal and not under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
6. But in so far as the instant matter is concerned, the facts
disclose that the appellant M.P. Rural Road Development Authority
cancelled the works contract itself which was executed in favour of the
respondent. In that event, the works contract between the parties was not
in existence at all which would operate as a statutory mandate for
reference of the dispute to the M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal.
7. It is no doubt true that if the matter were before an Arbitrator
appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for adjudication
of any dispute including the question regarding the justification and
31
legality as to whether the cancellation of works contract was legal or
illegal, then the said Arbitrator in view of the ratio of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University & Anr . Vs. Anand
Co-op L(C) Society , 2007 (5) SCC 295, as also in view of the persuasive
reasoning assigned in the judgment and order reported in Heyman & Anr.
Vs. Darwins, Limited, 1942 (1) All E.R. 337 would have had the jurisdiction
to adjudicate the dispute regarding the justification and legality of
cancellation of works contract also. But the same cannot be allowed to
be raised under the M.P. Act of 1983 since the definition of ‘works
contract’ unambiguously lays down in explicit terms as to what is the
nature and scope of ‘works contract’ and further enumerates the specific
nature of disputes arising out of the execution of works contract which
would come within the definition of a ‘works contract’.
8. However, the same does not even vaguely include the issue
or dispute arising out of cancellation and termination of contract due to
which this question, in my considered opinion, would not fall within the
jurisdiction of M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal so as to be referred for
adjudication arising out of its termination. As already stated, fall out
certainly would be otherwise if the matter were to be adjudicated by an
Arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
that would be in view of the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court
32
referred to hereinbefore which has held it permissible for the Arbitrator
to adjudicate even the dispute arising out of cancellation or termination of
an agreement or contract. This however, cannot be allowed to broaden
or expand the ambit and scope of the M.P. Act of 1983 where the State
Legislature has passed a specific legislation in respect of certain
specified types of arbitration determining as to what are the nature of
disputes to be referred to the M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal and that
specifically permits the reference of dispute arising out of execution of
contract but clearly leaves out any dispute arising out of termination,
cancellation or repudiation of ‘works contract’. In order to clarify the point
further, what needs to be emphasized is that if the nature of dispute
referred to the Arbitrator like the instant matter, related to a dispute
pertaining to construction, repair, maintenance of any building super-
structure, dam or for the reasons stated within the definition of ‘works
contract’, the matter may be referred to the M.P. Tribunal in view of the
fact that if there is a dispute in relation to execution of a works contract,
then irrespective of the fact whether the agreement contains an
arbitration clause or not, the dispute is required to be referred to the M.P.
State Arbitration Tribunal for adjudication. But when the contract itself
has been terminated, cancelled or repudiated as it has happened in the
instant case, then the nature of dispute does not fall within the definition
of ‘works contract’ for the sole reason that it does not include any dispute
33
pertaining to cancellation of a works contract implying that when the
works contract itself is not in existence by virtue of its cancellation, the
dispute cannot be referred to the M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal but may
have to be decided by an Arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
9. Hence, the nature of the dispute which falls within the
definition of ‘works contract’ under Section 2(i) of the M.P. Act, 1983
and one of the contracting parties to the agreement is the State of M.P.,
then irrespective of an arbitration agreement the dispute will have to be
referred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 7 of the Act of 1983. But if
the works contract itself has been repudiated and hence not in existence
at all by virtue of its cancellation/termination, then in my considered view,
the dispute will have to be referred to an independent arbitrator to be
appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 since the M.P.
Act 1983 envisages reference of a dispute to the State Tribunal only in
respect of certain specified types of arbitration enumerated under Section
2 (i) of the M.P. Act, 1983.
10. As a consequence and fall out of the aforesaid discussion,
the impugned order of the High Court by which the dispute relating to
termination of works contract by the M.P. Rural Road Development
Authority itself was referred to an independent arbitrator appointed by the
34
High Court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 needs to be
sustained and there is no need for a de novo reference of the dispute to
the M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal. In the alternative, the consequence
would have been otherwise and the matter could have been referred to
the State Arbitration Tribunal if the dispute between the parties related to
any dispute emerging out of execution of works contract which could fall
within the definition of ‘works contract’ given out within the definition of
‘works contract’ under Section 2(i) of the M.P. Act of 1983. In order to
avoid any ambiguity, it is reiterated that in view of cancellation of the
works contract itself which is the position in the instant case, the
proceedings before the Arbitrator appointed by the High Court cannot be
treated as non-est so as to refer the same once again to the tribunal for
adjudication as the dispute does not emerge or pertain to execution of
works contract but relates to non-existence of works contract by virtue of
its cancellation.
11. Thus the sum and substance of what I wish to emphasize is
that the question as to whether the dispute would be referred to the M.P.
Tribunal in terms of Section 7 of the M.P. Act of 1983 or to an
independent arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will
depend upon the factum whether the works contract is existing between
the parties or not out of which the dispute has arisen. In case, the works
35
contract itself has been repudiated/cancelled, then, in view of its non-
existence, Section 7 of the M.P. Act pertaining to reference of dispute to
tribunal would not come into play at all by virtue of the fact that the
dispute relating to execution of works contract alone can be referred to
the tribunal in view of the specific nature of works contract enumerated
within the definition of works contract under the Act of 1983. However,
when the works contract itself becomes non-existent as a consequence of
its cancellation, the matter will have to be referred to an independent
arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not to M.P.
State Arbitration Tribunal.
12. Thus, while holding that the M.P. Act 1983 should operate in
the State of M.P. in respect of certain specified types of arbitration, the
appointment of an independent arbitrator by the High Court under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 needs to be sustained since the
works contract itself is not in existence by virtue of its cancellation and
hence this part of the dispute could not have been referred to the M.P.
State Tribunal.
13. Consequently, the instant appeal stands partly allowed. There
will be no order as to costs.
36
………………………………..J.
(Gyan Sudha Misra)
New Delhi,
January 24, 2012.
37
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 974 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.907/2011)
M.P.Rural Road Development
Authority & Anr.
...Appellant(s)
- Versus -
M/s. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers & Cont.
...Respondent(s)
ORDER
In view of some divergence of views expressed in
the two judgments delivered today by us, the
matter may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief
Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench
to resolve the divergence.
.............................J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
.............................J.
(GYAN SUDHA MISRA)
NEW DELHI,
24-01-2012
38