1

REPORTABLE

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4250 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s).24172 of 2017)

 M/S ESSEL INFRA PROJECTS LTD.       THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE            APPELLANT(s)

                               VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH      ACTING THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR     RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1.  We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave

granted only to consider whether any direction is required

for timeliness in disposal of proceedings under the M.P.

Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (M.P. Act, 1983).

2. Sh.  Parag  Tripathi,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

appellant  submitted  that  as  at  present  the  Tribunal

proceedings under the M.P. Act, 1983 take upto five years

and sometime even more.  Learned counsel for the State does

not dispute that it is so happening in some cases.

3. Having regard to the object of the legislation which

is  to  provide  speedy  dispute  resolution  mechanism,  the

State  must  monitor  timeliness  so  that  arbitration

2

proceedings do not take unduly long time. One to two years

may,  in  our  view,  be  taken  as  reasonable  time  for  the

purpose.  

4. Having regard to the realistic assessment which may be

made from time to time, such number of Benches may be set

up as may effectuate this object. The  Chairman  of  the

Tribunal must also ensure that no unreasonable delay takes

place. As and when the Chairman thinks that there is dearth

of Benches, the Chairman must communicate the same to the

State Government and the State Government must forthwith

take a call thereon. If it is found that in spite of these

directions,  the  speedy  disposal  of  proceedings  is  not

taking place, it will be open to either parties to move the

Chief Justice of High Court who may look into the matter

and issue such directions as may be considered necessary in

this regard.

5. We  may  also  mention  that  decision  at  the  original

level is not enough if proceedings are thereafter held up

in  revision  proceedings  before  the  High  Court.  Such

revision petition must be disposed of expeditiously but not

beyond two years.

6. Though  the  above  timelines  are  not  mandatory,  same

must be kept in mind by all concerned and attention of

Chief  Justice  of  the  High  Court  must  be  drawn  if  such

3

timelines are not followed so that the Chief Justice may

take such steps as may be possible in the matter. In case

it  is  found  that  timelines  as  contemplated  cannot  be

achieved,  statutory  amendments  be  considered  so  as  to

provide remedies at any other appropriate forum. In this

connection reference may be made to the judgment of this

Court dated 28.03.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.470 of 2018

titled “Krishnakant Tamrakar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh”.  

7. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.  

..........................J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]

..........................J.    [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]

NEW DELHI 19th April, 2018