1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s). 4011  OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.31682 of 2011)

MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT  AUTHORITY AND ANR.                       Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LIMITED AND ANR.             Respondent(s)

AND  CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s). 4015  OF 2018

(Arising out of SLP(C)No. 31684 of 2011) MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT  AUTHORITY AND ANR.                       Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LIMITED AND ANR.             Respondent(s)

O R D E R Delay condoned.  Leave granted. In view of judgment of this Court in  Va Tech Escher Wyass

Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another, (2011) 13 SCC 261 having been overruled and as the High Court has relied on Judgment in C.R. NO.353 of 2004, Mahesh Chandra Garg v. State of M.P. and Ors. decided  on  23.2.2010  which  was  based  on  Va  Tech  (supra),  the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal so that the said Tribunal can deal with the matter on merits in accordance with law.

The appeals are disposed of. The  parties  may  appear  before  the  Tribunal  for  further

proceedings on 9th July, 2018.  

2

The  appellant  may  serve  a  copy  of  this  order  on  the respondents.

..........................J.                 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

..........................J.         (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi, April 18, 2018.

3

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s). 4012 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.26350 of 2011)

MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT  AUTHORITY AND ANR.                       Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LIMITED AND ANR.             Respondent(s)

WITH  CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s). 4013 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.29622 of 2011)

MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT  AUTHORITY AND ANR.                       Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS M/S. MAKHIJA CONSTRUCTION CO.               Respondent(s)

AND  CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s). 4014 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.26605 of 2011)

MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT  AUTHORITY AND ANR.                       Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LIMITED AND ANR.             Respondent(s)

O R D E R Delay condoned.  Leave granted. In view of judgment of this Court in  Va Tech Escher Wyass

Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another, (2011) 13 SCC 261 having been overruled, the jurisdiction to deal with the dispute in question is vested with the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.  The direction in the

4

impugned order under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is set aside.

The appeals are disposed of. The respondent will be at liberty to take their remedy before

the statutory Tribunal in accordance with law. The parties may appear before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal

for further proceedings on 9th July, 2018.   The  appellant  may  serve  a  copy  of  this  order  on  the

respondents.

..........................J.                 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

..........................J.         (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi, April 18, 2018.

5

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

     CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s). 4016  OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.29624 of 2011)

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.        Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS M/S. KETI CONSTRUTION                Respondent(s)

O R D E R Delay condoned.  Leave granted. We  have  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  perused  the

record. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the parties that in

view  of  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Madhya  Pradesh  Rural  Road Development  Authority  and  Anr. v.  L.G.  Chaudhary  Engineers  and Contractors, (2012) 3 SCC 495 which has overruled the judgment of this Court in  Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v.  MPSE Board & Another, (2011) 13 SCC 261, the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter remanded to the High Court which may decide the dispute between the parties in the revision petition filed by the respondent in accordance with law.   Ordered accordingly.  Civil Revision NO.509 of 2005 is restored to its original number.

The appeal is disposed of. The  parties  may  appear  before  the  High  Court  for  further

proceedings on 9th July, 2018.   ..........................J.

               (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

..........................J.         (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi, April 18, 2018.

6

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s). 4257  OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.10697 of 2018

@ Diary NO.6013 of 2018) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR.           Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS M/S. KMC CONSTRUCTION LIMITED               Respondent(s)

AND  CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s). 4258 OF 2018

(Arising out of SLP(C)No.10703 of 2018 @ Diary NO.6135 of 2018)

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR.           Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS M/S. KMC CONSTRUCTION LIMITED               Respondent(s)

AND  CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s). 4259  OF 2018

(Arising out of SLP(C)No.10706 of 2018 @ Diary NO.6138 of 2018)

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR.           Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS M/S. KMC CONSTRUCTION LIMITED               Respondent(s)

O R D E R Delay condoned.  Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record. In view of judgment of this Court in Madhya Pradesh Rural Road

Development  Authority  and  Anr. v.  L.G.  Chaudhary  Engineers  and Contractors, (2012) 3 SCC 495 and the order passed by this Court on

7

8th March, 2018 in the same matter, the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, (M.P. Act) has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the dispute in question.  Accordingly, the impugned direction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be sustained and is set aside.  

The parties are relegated to M.P. Arbitration Tribunal which may  decide  the  dispute  as  per  provisions  of  M.P.  Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (M.P. Act).

The appeals are disposed of. The  parties  may  appear  before  the  Tribunal  for  further

proceedings on 9th July, 2018.   It will be open to the respondents to file the very same claim

which has already been filed before the Arbitrator.

..........................J.                 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

..........................J.         (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi, April 18, 2018.

8

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s). 4261  OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.10747 of 2018

@ Diary No.10625 of 2018)

PURI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.            Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.                     Respondent(s)

O R D E R Delay condoned.  Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record. An agreement was executed between the parties on 11th May, 1984

for  construction  of  Assembly  building  in  the  State  of  Madhya Pradesh.  Dispute arose from the agreement.  The High Court of Delhi appointed an arbitrator vide order dated 13th December, 1988. The Arbitrator gave the award on 21st June, 1989 which was made Rule of the Court by Delhi High Court on 28th September, 1989.  Execution proceedings  were taken  by the  appellant.  Learned Single  Judge allowed the execution vide Order dated 6th September, 1991 against which an appeal was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court.   

The Division Bench vide order dated 5th July, 2012 directed that the enforceability of the decree will depend upon the fate of another appeal which was pending between the parties.  The  said

9

appeal, FAO (OS)No.23/1998, is still pending but the High Court has deferred the same pending decision of larger Bench of this Court in pursuance of judgment of this Court in  Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development  Authority  and  Anr. v.  L.G.  Chaudhary  Engineers  and Contractors, (2012) 3 SCC 495.  It may be noted that the larger Bench has decided the matter on 8th March, 2018. In terms of the said decision the dispute between the parties has to be settled in accordance with the provisions of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (M.P. Act).   

However, since in the present case the award has been rendered long  back  which  was  not  challenged  by  the  respondents  and  the matter is pending at the stage of execution, we direct that the award be treated to have been rendered under the M.P. Act.   

In view of above, we transfer pending proceedings before Delhi High Court being FAO (OS)NO.23/1998 and connected matters to High Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh  at  Jabalpur  to  be  treated  as  revision petition under the M.P. Act.

Another  dispute  between  the  parties  was  referred  to arbitration vide order dated 19th May, 1993.  However, before the arbitration proceedings could be decided the arbitrators are said to have expired.

In  the  circumstances  pending  Arbitration  proceedings  shall stand transferred to the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal under the M.P. Act,  to  be  dealt  with  as  per  provisions  of  the  M.P.  Act  in accordance  with  law.   The  proceedings  may  be  carried  out  in continuation of earlier proceedings.

10

The parties may take steps by moving the High Court or any other forum for transfer of records to the transferee courts in the light of this Order.   The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

The  parties  may  appear  before  the  High  Court/Tribunal  for further proceedings on 9th July, 2018.   

..........................J.                 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

..........................J.         (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi, April 18, 2018.

11

` REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4017 OF 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 6513 OF 2018)  

  M/S GANGOTRI ENTERPRISES LTD.            APPELLANT(S)                        VERSUS

  MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT          CORPORATION AND ANR.                    RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Our  attention  has  been  drawn  to  the definition  of  "dispute"  under  Section  2(d)  of  the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 ("1983 Act") which is as follows:

"'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. We consider it appropriate to clarify that the expression  "ascertained  money"  as  used  in  Section 2(d) of the 1983 Act will include not only the amount already  ascertained  but  the  amount  which  may  be ascertained during the proceedings on the basis of

12

claims/ counter claims of the parties. {

4. Our attention has also been drawn to Section 4(3)(iii) of the 1983 Act to submit that consistent with the policy of law and the judgment of this Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.  vs. Raja Transport Private Ltd., (2009) 8 SCC 520, an employee of a party to the dispute cannot be an arbitrator. Section 4(3)(iii) of the 1983 Act is in the following terms:

"4.  Chairman  and  members  of  Tribunal and their qualifications.- (3) No person shall be qualified for

appointment  as  a  member  of  the Tribunal, unless- (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."

13

5. We clarify that the State of Madhya Pradesh will  not  appoint  as  member  of  the  Tribunal,  its employee  of  the  concerned  department  to  which  the dispute relates.

6. The appeal stands disposed of as above.

S.L.P.(C)….D. No. 10817/2018 and S.L.P.(C)…..D. No. 12928/2018:

Delay condoned. The special leave petitions shall also stand

disposed of in terms of the order passed today in S.L.P. (C) No. 6513 of 2018.

Pending  applications,  if  any,  also  stand disposed of.

…...…................J. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

…...…................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

NEW DELHI,    APRIL 18, 2018

14

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4018 OF 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 12478 OF 2016)     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.           APPELLANT(S)

                      VERSUS    ASHOKA INFRAWAYS LTD. & ANR.            RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted. Heard  learned  counsel  for  the parties.

It is not disputed that the judgment relied upon in the impugned order has since been overruled by a larger bench of the High Court in Viva Highways Ltd. vs.  Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation reported  in  2017  (2)  MPLJ  681.  Accordingly,  the impugned  order  is  set  aside  and  the  appeal  is allowed.

It  is  made  clear  that  if  any  arbitration proceedings  are  pending,  the  same  will  now  be governed by the above judgment of the High Court.

The appeal is disposed of.

…...…................J. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

…...…................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

NEW DELHI, APRIL 18, 2018