M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD & ANR.versusK.P. DWIVEDI

                       [2021] 11 S.C.R. 1083                            1083


  M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                           A
                   BOARD & ANR.
                                 v.
                          K.P. DWIVEDI
                  (Civil Appeal No. 6768 of 2021)                       B
                       DECEMBER 03, 2021
         [M. R. SHAH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
      Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran, 1983 – ss. 7 and
19 – Reference Petition and Revision Petition – Contract for
                                                                        C
construction of houses was executed between appellants and
respondents – Dispute arose between the parties as regard to
extension of time for completion of work – Appellant rescinded the
contract – Respondent filed writ petition before the High Court –
The High Court by order dated with consensus of both the parties
appointed an arbitrator i.e. Housing Commissioner – The Arbitrator      D
passed an award dated 07.11.2008 rejecting the claim of the
respondent and granted relief to the appellant – Instead of
challenging the said award u/s. 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, the respondent filed fresh reference petition
before M.P. Arbitration Tribunal u/s. 7 of the 1983 Act – M.P.
                                                                        E
Arbitration Tribunal by order dated 27.02.2017 dismissed the claim
of the respondent as not maintainable since the claim was already
decided by the Arbitrator and the award had achieved finality –
Respondent then filed Arbitration Revision Petition before the High
Court u/s. 19 of the 1983 Act, which was allowed by the High Court
and Tribunal was directed to decide the reference/claim in              F
accordance with law – On appeal, held: The order passed by the
High Court referring dispute to the Arbitrator was a consent order
– The respondent-contractor participated in the arbitration
proceedings by submitting claim is binding on the parties by ‘issue
estoppel’ – The award passed by the Arbitrator was not challenged
                                                                        G
and it has attained finality – As per s.19 of the 1983 Act, revision
application is maintainable only against the award passed by the
Arbitral Tribunal – In the instant case, the Arbitral Tribunal had
not passed any award – Even the High Court had not set aside the
award passed by the arbitrator – Technically, award passed by the
arbitrator stands – It is binding between the parties – Thus, the       H
                                1083
1084           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A     impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in the
       Arbitration Revision petition is quashed and order passed by the
       Arbitral Tribunal dated 27.02.2017 is restored.
             Allowing the appeals, the Court
              HELD: 1. The case of the respondent – contractor that the
 B     earlier order passed by the High Court dated 20.08.2008 passed
       in Writ Petition No.9131 of 2008, referring the dispute between
       the parties for adjudication to the Arbitrator – Housing
       Commissioner and thereafter the award declared by the Arbitrator
       – Housing Commissioner dated 07.11.2008 are non-est and void
 C     and therefore, it was open for the contractor to file a fresh
       reference petition before the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 7
       of the 1983 Act, cannot be accepted for the following reasons: (i)
       It was the respondent – contractor who approached the High
       Court by filing Writ Petition No.9131 of 2008 submitting that he
       has invoked the arbitration clause; (ii) The order passed by the
 D     High Court dated 20.08.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.9131 of
       2008 referring the dispute between the parties to the Arbitrator
       – Housing Commissioner was a consent order; (iii) Thereafter
       the respondent – contractor submitted the claims before the
       learned Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner; (iv) The learned
 E     Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner passed an award which has
       attained the finality; (v) That the review petition filed by the
       contractor for clarification of the order dated 20.08.2008 passed
       in Writ Petition No.9131 of 2008 to clarify the aforesaid order to
       the extent that it did not take away the right of the contractor to
       file the reference petition before the Arbitral Tribunal under the
 F     1983 Act came to be rejected and the same also attained finality;
       (vi) The claims submitted before the Arbitrator – Housing
       Commissioner; before the High Court in Writ Petition No.9131
       of 2008; and the claim submitted in Reference Petition before
       the Arbitral Tribunal under the 1983 Act are the same without
 G     any change; (vii) In the subsequent reference petition before the
       Arbitral Tribunal under the 1983 Act there was no reference to
       the earlier order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition
       No.9131 of 2008 referring the dispute between the parties for
       adjudication to Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner and the award

 H
  M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                          1085
                BOARD v. K.P. DWIVEDI

passed by the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner. Thus, there           A
was a suppression on the part of the respondent – contractor;
(viii) The order passed by the High Court dated 20.08.2008 passed
in Writ Petition No.9131 of 2008 referring the dispute between
the parties for adjudication to the Arbitrator – Housing
Commissioner as such was a consent order and thereafter the
                                                                       B
contractor participated in the arbitration proceedings before the
Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner by submitting the claim is
binding between the parties on the ground of ‘issue estoppel’.
[Para 14][1101-G-H; 1102-A-H; 1103-A]
      2. Apart from the fact that the award declared by the
Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner was not challenged by the            C
respondent – contractor, even, so long as the said award is not
challenged before the higher forum the same is binding between
the parties. Even the award or a nullity order has to be challenged
before the appropriate forum/higher forum. In the present case
it cannot be said that there was a total lack of jurisdiction of the   D
Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner in passing the award as it
was the High Court who passed the order with consent referring
the dispute between the parties for the adjudication to the
Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner. Therefore, unless and until
it was challenged by the contractor before the higher forum, the
respondent – contractor cannot be permitted to ignore and/or to        E
avoid the award passed by the Arbitrator – Housing
Commissioner dated 07.11.2008. [Para 16][1103-C-E]
       3. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that what was
filed before the High Court was the revision application filed by
the contractor under Section 19 of the 1983 Act rejecting the          F
reference petition as not maintainable. Therefore, as per Section
19 of the 1983 Act, Revision Application to the High Court shall
be maintainable only against the award passed by the Arbitral
Tribunal. Therefore, prima facie it appears that as such the order
passed by the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the reference petition       G
was not maintainable as by order dated 27.02.2017, no award was
passed by the Tribunal. However, as no such objection was raised
before the High Court and no submission has been made by the
parties, we rest the matter there. [Para 17][1103-E-F; 1104-E-G]

                                                                       H
1086           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A           4. Even otherwise it is required to be noted that while
       passing the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has
       not set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator - Housing
       Commissioner dated 07.11.2008. Therefore, technically speaking
       the award passed by the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner dated
       07.11.2008 stands even today. It is binding between the parties.
 B
       So long as the award passed by the Arbitrator – Housing
       Commissioner dated 07.11.2008 stands, there cannot be any
       subsequent fresh proceeding with respect to the same claims
       which were considered and adjudicated by the Arbitrator –
       Housing Commissioner while passing the award dated 07.11.2008.
 C     So long as the said award stands it is binding between the parties.
       [Para 18][1104-G-H; 1105-A-B]
             5. Even otherwise it is required to be noted that no
       objection was raised by the respondent – contractor before the
       Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner on the jurisdiction of the
 D     Housing Commissioner to act as an Arbitrator. On the contrary,
       the order passed by the High Court referring the dispute between
       the parties for adjudication to the Arbitrator – Housing
       Commissioner was a consent order and the respondent contractor
       conceded to and accepted the said order and submitted his claim
       before the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner. The Arbitrator –
 E     Housing Commissioner also passed an award on the said claim.
       Therefore, as no objections were raised by the respondent –
       contractor at the appropriate stage, the award cannot be annulled
       subsequently. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that at no
       point of time the respondent – contractor had challenged the award
 F     passed by the Arbitrator - Housing Commissioner and even no
       court has set aside the award declared by the Arbitrator – Housing
       Commissioner dated 07.11.2008 and the same has attained finality.
       Therefore, the same is binding between the parties. Hence, the
       subsequent fresh reference petition before the Arbitral Tribunal
       under the 1983 Act for the very same claims which were raised
 G     before the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner would not be
       maintainable at all. This Court agrees with the view taken by the
       Arbitral Tribunal. [Para 19][1105-B-F]


 H
 M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                 1087
               BOARD v. K.P. DWIVEDI

     Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority         A
     and Another vs. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and
     Contractors, (2018) 10 SCC 826 : 2018 (5) SCALE
     103; Hope Plantations Ltd. vs Taluk Land Board,
     Peermade and Another, (1999) 5 SCC 590 : [1998] 2
     Suppl. SCR 514; Bhanu Kumar Jain vs Archana Kumar
                                                             B
     and Another, (2005)1 SCC 787 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR
     1104; Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) Th. LR. Sadhna Rai
     (Smt.) vs. Rajinder Singh & Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 566 :
     [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 370; Rafique Bibi (Dead) By Lrs.
     vs. Sayed Waliuddin (Dead) by LRs and others, (2004)
     1 SCC 287 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 100; M.P.Road           C
     Development Authority and Anr. vs. L.G. Chaudhary
     Engineers & Contractors reported in (2012) 3 SCC 495
     : [ 2012] 2 SCR 162; M.P. Rural Road Development
     Authority and Anr. vs. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers &
     Contractors reported in (2018) 10 SCC 826: 2018 (5 )
                                                             D
     SCALE 103; Viva Highways Ltd. vs. MP Rural Road
     Development Corporation Ltd. I.A.No.14 of 2017
     decided by the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High
     Court; M/s Essel Infra Projects Ltd. vs. The State of
     MP in Civil Appeal No.4250 of 2018 decided by the
     Supreme Court of India; Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. Ajmer   E
     Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2019) 17 SCC 82: [2019]
     15 SCR 113 – referred to.
                    Case Law Reference
[1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 514     referred to          Para 6.6
                                                             F
[2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 1104    referred to          Para 6.6
[2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 370     referred to          Para 6.7
[2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 100     referred to          Para 6.7
[2012] 2 SCR 162            referred to          Para 8.2
                                                             G
[2019] 15 SCR 113           referred to          Para 8.6




                                                             H
1088             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6768 of
       2021.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2018 of the High Court
       of Madhya Pradesh, Main Seat Jabalpur in Arbitration Revision No.13
       of 2017.
 B
               With
               Civil Appeal Nos. 6769 and 6770 of 2021.
             Bharat Singh, AAG, Arjun Garg, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Advs. for
       the Appellants.
 C
             Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv., Anuj Tyagi, Ms. Maitry Kakade, Advs. for
       the Respondent.
               The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
               M. R. SHAH, J.
 D
              1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
       and order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
       in Arbitration Revision Nos.11, 12 & 13 of 2017 by which the High
       Court has quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Madhya
       Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal and has directed the said Tribunal
 E     to decide the respective references on merits, Madhya Pradesh Housing
       and Infrastructure Development Board and another have preferred the
       present appeals.
             2. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of
       appeals, all these appeals are decided and disposed of together by this
 F     common judgment and order.
              For the sake of convenience Civil Appeal No.6768 of 2021 arising
       out of Special Leave Petition No.32557 of 2018 arising out of the impugned
       judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in
       Arbitration Revision No.13 of 2017 is treated and considered as the lead
 G     matter and the facts in the said appeal are narrated which in nutshell are
       as under:
             2.1 Appellants floated a tender for construction of houses at Riviera
       Town, Near MANIT Square, Bhopal. Contract was awarded to the
       respondent herein. An agreement dated 15.07.2005 was executed
 H     between the appellants and the respondent. In the year 2008, the disputes
  M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                                    1089
         BOARD v. K.P. DWIVEDI [M. R. SHAH, J.]

arose between the parties. According to the appellants, the respondent           A
was supposed to complete the work within 18 months. However, despite
granting repeated extensions, the contractor failed to complete the work,
on account of which, appellants rescinded the contract by invoking clause
3 of the contract agreement. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2008,
rescinding the contract, the respondent - contractor by invoking clause
                                                                                 B
29 of the contract agreement filed a claim petition along with granting
extension of time upto 31.03.2009 before the Deputy Housing
Commissioner, Bhopal. The respondent - contractor also filed a writ
petition before the High Court seeking direction to permit him to complete
the work. High Court vide Order dated 20.08.2008 disposed of the said
petition on a joint consensus of the parties that the dispute shall be decided   C
by the arbitrator i.e., Housing Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board within
the stipulated period. The respondent - contractor thereafter filed a
modified claim before the Office of the Housing Commissioner along
with prayer for grant of extension of time. Thus, the respondent -
contractor participated in the arbitration proceedings before the Housing
                                                                                 D
Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board. That the learned Arbitrator passed
an award on 07.11.2008 rejecting the claim of the respondent - contractor
and granting some relief in favour of the appellants. Instead of challenging
the said award by way of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Arbitration Act,
1996’), the respondent filed a fresh Reference Petition before the Madhya        E
Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh
Madhyastham Adhikaran, Vindhyachal, Bhopal, (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the 1983 Act’). The appellants filed their written statements on various
grounds along with preliminary objections including that the dispute has
already been decided by the Arbitrator vide award dated 07.11.2008
                                                                                 F
which was duly constituted by the High Court and therefore, the fresh
claim petition for the same claim before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal,
Bhopal was not maintainable. It was also submitted that the award passed
by the Arbitrator had already achieved finality and therefore, the dispute
for the said claim cannot be entertained by the Tribunal subsequently.
Vide order dated 27.02.2017 the learned M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal        G
dismissed the said claim/reference as not maintainable since claim made
by the respondent had already been decided by the Arbitrator appointed
by the High Court and the award passed by the learned Arbitrator had
achieved finality and so the dispute for the said claim could not be
entertained by the learned Tribunal subsequently.
                                                                                 H
1090            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A             3. Having realized that the earlier order dated 20.08.2008 passed
       in W.P. No.9131 of 2008 by which the dispute was referred for arbitration
       to the Housing Commissioner would come in his way, as an afterthought,
       the respondent - contractor filed a review petition in the month of May,
       2017 seeking clarification of the order dated 20.08.2008 passed in W.P.
       No.9131 of 2008 to the extent that by directing the adjudication of the
 B
       dispute by the Housing Commissioner, it did not take away the jurisdiction
       of learned Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Act. It appears
       that in the mean time the full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
       vide judgment and order dated 05.05.2017 held that if an agreement falls
       within the definition of ‘works contract’ then the dispute arising from
 C     such an agreement shall be adjudicated by the Tribunal under the 1983
       Act. The review application was opposed by the appellants. Vide order
       dated 07.09.2017, the High Court dismissed the review petition by
       observing that the case did not fall within the review jurisdiction of the
       Court under Order 47 Rule 1, CPC.
 D            3.1 That after the dismissal of the review petition, the respondent
       - contractor filed the present Arbitration Revision Petition before the
       High Court under Section 19 of the 1983 Act challenging the order passed
       by the learned Tribunal dated 27.02.2017 dismissing the claim/reference
       as not maintainable. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court
       has allowed the said revision and has quashed and set aside the order
 E     passed by the learned Tribunal dated 27.02.2017 and has directed the
       learned Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Act to decide the
       reference/claim on merits and in accordance with law.
             4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
       and order passed by the High Court, M.P. Housing and Infrastructure
 F     Development Board has preferred the present appeal.
             5. Shri Bharat Singh, learned AAG has appeared for the appellants
       and Shri Kavin Gulati, learned Senior Advocate has appeared for the
       respondent - contractor in the respective appeals.

 G            6. Shri Bharat Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
       appellants has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and
       order passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the order
       passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal dated 27.02.2017 by which the
       learned Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the reference/claim petition filed by
       the respondent - contractor as not maintainable, in view of the earlier
 H     award passed by the learned Arbitrator and directing the learned Arbitral
  M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                                   1091
         BOARD v. K.P. DWIVEDI [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Tribunal to entertain the claim reference and to decide the same on             A
merits is unsustainable in law as well as on facts.
        6.1 It is urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants that the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and
order has not at all appreciated and considered the fact that earlier the
dispute between the parties was referred to the Arbitrator- Housing             B
Commissioner by the High Court and that too in the petition filed by the
respondent - contractor himself. It is submitted that the High Court has
not at all appreciated the fact that as such the learned Arbitrator appointed
pursuant to the order passed by the High Court had passed an award
which had attained finality inasmuch as the said award had not been
challenged by the respondent – contractor by way of appeal under Section        C
34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.
       6.2 It is contended that the learned Arbitrator had passed an award
and the only remedy available to the respondent - contractor was to
challenge the same by way of an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration
Act, 1996, which remedy the respondent - contractor had failed to avail.        D
It is submitted that instead he filed a fresh claim petition before the
learned Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Act which as such
and as rightly observed by the Arbitral Tribunal was not maintainable.
       6.3 It is further submitted that the order passed by the High Court
referring the dispute between the parties to the Arbitrator - Housing           E
Commissioner was a consent order and the same was as per the relevant
arbitration clause in the agreement entered into between the parties.
       6.4 It is further urged that even subsequent to the order passed by
the Arbitral Tribunal dated 27.02.2017, with a mala fide intention as an
afterthought, the respondent - contractor filed a review application before     F
the High Court challenging the consent order dated 20.08.2008 i.e., after
a period of 9 years of the order and the said review petition had also
came to be dismissed by the High Court. It is submitted that even
dismissal of the review petition had also attained the finality and the
same was not carried further. It is urged that therefore, it was not open       G
for the respondent – contractor to file a fresh claim petition for the same
claim which was made before the learned Arbitrator - Housing
Commissioner constituted pursuant the order passed by the High Court.
     6.5 It is submitted that in the case of Madhya Pradesh Rural
Road Development Authority and Another vs. L.G. Chaudhary
                                                                                H
1092             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A     Engineers and Contractors, (2018) 10 SCC 826, relating to the issue
       of jurisdiction of the M.P. Tribunal, this Hon’ble Court has categorically
       held that if no objection to the jurisdiction of the arbitration was taken at
       the relevant stage, that award cannot be annulled only on that ground. It
       is urged that in the present case no such objection was raised by the
       respondent - contractor at the relevant stage. It is urged that in fact, the
 B
       entire proceedings before the Arbitrator - Housing Commissioner was
       at the behest of the respondent - contractor, as it was he who filed the
       writ petition culminating in the consent order appointing an arbitrator,
       and then filed a claim.
              6.6 It is contended that even a fresh reference petition by the
 C     respondent - contractor is also not maintainable in view of the principle
       of Issue Estoppel. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in
       Hope Plantations Ltd. vs Taluk Land Board, Peermade and
       Another, (1999) 5 SCC 590 and Bhanu Kumar Jain vs Archana
       Kumar and Another, (2005) 1 SCC 787.
 D            6.7 It is further contended that the claim of the respondent -
       contractor that the judgment passed by the High Court in the year 2008
       was contrary to law and cannot confer jurisdiction on the arbitrator is
       misconceived and erroneous for the reason that the order was passed
       with consent and even if the order is wrong, it will continue to bind the
 E     parties until and unless it is set aside by a competent court. Reliance is
       placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat
       (D) Th. LR. Sadhna Rai (Smt.) vs. Rajinder Singh & Ors., (2006)
       5 SCC 566 (para 17) and Rafique Bibi (Dead) By Lrs. vs. Sayed
       Waliuddin (Dead) by LRs and others, (2004) 1 SCC 287 (paras 7
       and 8).
 F
             7. Making the above submissions and relying upon the above
       decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals and set aside the
       impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court.
               8. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Kavin Gulati,
 G     learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent – contractor.
       It is submitted that the 1983 Act is a Special Act providing for statutory
       and compulsory arbitration under the said Act for disputes pertaining to
       ‘works contract’. It is submitted that Section 7 of the Act provides that
       either party to a ‘works contract’…. shall irrespective of the fact whether
       the agreement contains an arbitration clause or not, refer in writing the
 H     dispute to the Tribunal. It is contended that the term ‘dispute’ is defined
  M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                                   1093
         BOARD v. K.P. DWIVEDI [M. R. SHAH, J.]

in Section 2(d) to mean a claim having a value of Rs.50,000/- or more. It       A
is contended that therefore the claims above Rs.50,000/- are to be
compulsorily brought before the Tribunal constituted under Section 3 of
the 1983 Act.
        8.1 It is urged that even as per Section 7B of the 1983 Act no
dispute can be referred to the Arbitration Tribunal unless the dispute is       B
first referred for decision of the final authority under the scope of the
term ‘works contract’. It is only once a decision is made or if the authority
fails to make a decision can a claim be preferred before the Tribunal.
       8.2 It is submitted that the 1983 Act is a Special Act insofar as the
State of M.P. is concerned, and therefore it will prevail over the provisions   C
of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Reliance is placed on the decision of this
Court in the case of M.P. Rural Road Development Authority and
Anr. vs. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers & Contractors reported in (2012)
3 SCC 495 and the subsequent decision in M.P. Rural Road
Development Authority and Anr. vs. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers
& Contractors reported in (2018) 10 SCC 826.                                    D

       8.3 It is submitted that the full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court has also taken the same view in the case of Viva Highways
Ltd. vs. MP Rural Road Development Corporation Ltd. in AA
No. 14 of 2017 and connected matters. It is submitted that the said
judgment has been approved by this Hon’ble Court in the case of M/s             E
Essel Infra Projects Ltd. vs. The State of MP in Civil Appeal No.4250
of 2018.
        8.4 It is submitted that in the present case, arbitration clause
contained in Clause 29 of the Agreement contemplates a two-stage
adjudication. At the first stage a reference has to be made to the Deputy       F
Housing Commissioner for his decision. If the amount is above Rs.25,000/
- then the papers have to be placed before the Housing Commissioner.
This constitutes the first stage. The second stage then contemplates
that, if the parties are aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Housing
Commissioner, then the dispute will be referred to the Additional Housing       G
Commissioner subject to the jurisdiction and limitations in accordance
with the provisions of the 1983 Act. It is submitted that even the Additional
Commissioner can only deal with the disputes which are only below
Rs.50,000/- as disputes above that amount are statutorily referable to
the arbitration by the learned Tribunal as is clear from Sections 3, 7, 2(d)
and 7B of the 1983 Act.                                                         H
1094             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A            8.5 It is submitted that in the present case, the contract in question
       was terminated on 30.06.2008 and a claim was preferred before the
       Deputy Housing Commissioner on 11.07.2008. Since the contract was
       terminated and the appellants herein were inviting fresh tenders and
       also seizing the machinery and material of the respondent - contractor, a
       Writ Petition was filed bearing no.9131 of 2008 before the High Court to
 B
       expedite the conclusion of the first stage of adjudication, under the threat
       of imminent monetary losses. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court
       by its order dated 20.08.2008 after recording the submissions of the
       respondent – contractor directed the Housing Commissioner to decide
       the dispute within the period stipulated in the agreement. It is submitted
 C     that as there was delay by the Deputy Housing Commissioner in taking
       the decision, a direction was to the Housing Commissioner to decide the
       issue, as the amount in dispute was more than Rs.25,000/- and it is only
       the Housing Commissioner who could take a decision as per Clause 29
       of the Contract. Liberty was also granted by the High Court to both
       parties to seek a redressal of their grievances against the final outcome
 D
       by approaching the court of law. It is submitted that thus it can be seen
       that the direction of the Hon’ble High Court was consistent with Clause
       29 as this represented a decision which would be the first stage of
       resolution of dispute as per Clause 29. It is submitted that the Housing
       Commissioner by an order dated 07.11.2008 by an ex-parte order
 E     dismissed the claims of the respondent – contractor. Immediately
       thereafter, in line with Clause 29 of the Agreement and Sections 7 and
       7B of the 1983 Act, a reference was preferred by the respondent –
       contractor herein under the 1983 Act. It is contended that the decision
       of the Housing Commissioner dated 07.11.2008 cannot be said to be a
       decision under the Arbitration Act, 1996. It is therefore urged that the
 F
       respondent was not required to file the objections under Section 34 of
       the Arbitration Act, 1996 as contended on behalf of the appellants.
              It is submitted that a reference filed by the respondent – contractor
       after the order of the Housing Commissioner was maintainable only
       after the order of the Housing Commissioner dated 07.11.2008 and not
 G     before that. It is therefore submitted that the respondent – contractor
       has acted strictly in accordance with Sections 7 and 7B of the 1983 Act
       read with Clause 29 of the Contract.
             8.6 Alternatively, it is submitted assuming that even if the order of
       the Housing Commissioner dated 07.11.2008 is considered to be under
 H     the Arbitration Act, 1996, the same would be non-est as any arbitration
  M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                                1095
         BOARD v. K.P. DWIVEDI [M. R. SHAH, J.]

relating to ‘works contract’ in M.P. could only be under the 1983 Act.       A
The fact of the respondent – contractor having consented to appear
before the Housing Commissioner would be immaterial as the proceedings
under the Arbitration Act, 1996 were without jurisdiction and void ab-
initio. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Hindustan
Zinc Ltd. vs. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2019) 17 SCC 82.
                                                                             B
      Relying upon the above decisions it is prayed to dismiss the present
appeals.
      9. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
       10. The short question which is posed before this Court for
consideration is, whether, in view of the award declared by the Housing      C
Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board, who was appointed as an arbitrator
pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.9131
of 2008, was it open for the respondent – contractor thereafter to file a
reference before M.P. Arbitration Tribunal with respect to the very claim/
claims which were the subject matter of arbitration before the Arbitrator    D
– Housing Commissioner.
       It is the case on behalf of the respondent – contractor that as the
contract was a ‘works contract’ and therefore, the dispute between the
appellants and the respondent – contractor could only be decided by the
learned Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Act, therefore, the     E
Housing Commissioner had no authority to act as an arbitrator and decide
the dispute between the parties and the award passed by the Arbitrator
- Housing Commissioner can be said to be non-est and wholly without
jurisdiction.
      11. While considering the aforesaid issue and the submissions made     F
by the learned counsel of the respective parties, first of all the reliefs
which were prayed by the respondent – contractor in Writ Petition
No.9131 of 2008 and the respective claims made by the respondent –
contractor before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 9131 of 2008,
before the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner and before the learned
Arbitral Tribunal are required to be referred to and considered.             G
      11.1 In the Writ Petition No.9131 of 2008 the respondent –
contractor prayed for the following reliefs:
      (a)    “To direct the Respondents to complete the arbitration
             proceedings.
                                                                             H
1096               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A           (b)     To direct the Respondents not to cancel the agreement and
                     be permitted the Petitioner to complete the work and quash
                     the order of tender dated 20.07.2008 (Annexure P/22) and
                     dated 27.07.2008 Annexure P/23).
             (c)     Set aside the order dated 30.06.2007 (Annexure P/19)
 B                   passed by the Executive Engineer.
             (d)     To direct the Respondents to pay the amount of outstanding
                     dues of Rs. 17835925.00 with interest and compensation
                     of ten crores.
             (e)     To direct the Respondents not to award the contract to any
 C                   other person and also direct the Respondents to decide the
                     arbitration, after affording the proper opportunity to the
                     Petitioner.
             (f)     To call the relevant records
             (g)     Any other order/ orders, directions which this Hon’ble Court
 D                   deems fit and proper may kindly be also granted.”
              11.2 That thereafter the High Court passed the following order
       dated 20.08.2008:
             “Shri Sameer Seth, Counsel for the Petitioner.
 E           Shri T.S. Ruprah, Sr. Counsel with Shri Harmeet Singh, Counsel
             for Respondents/ M.P. Housing Board.
             Learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly stated that the arbitration
             clause in the agreement has been invoked by submitting reference
             vide Annexure P20. He drew attention of this Court to the prayer
 F           for interim relief regarding restraining from inviting tender for the
             remaining work. He stated at Bar that no order has been passed
             on the prayer for interim relief.
             This being so, this petition is disposed of with a joint consensus of
             the learned Counsel for the parties in the following manner:-
 G           (i) The arbitrator i.e. Housing Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board
             would decide the dispute in arbitration within the period stipulated
             in the agreement.
             (ii) A decision on the interim prayer made on the interim page-25
             of the reference (Annexure P20) would be taken within a period
 H           of one week from today.
  M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                                     1097
         BOARD v. K.P. DWIVEDI [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       (iii) Till then no work order be issued pursuant to the fresh tender.      A
       (iv) Petitioner would also be at liberty to move a separate
       application within three days with regard to the relief granted vide
       interim order dated 07.08.2008. A decision on such application, if
       filed, would be taken in an expeditious manner preferably within a
       week. Interim order dated 07.08.2008 shall continue to operate             B
       till a decision on such interim application is taken.
              Petition, accordingly stands disposed of with an observation
       that the aggrieved party, in case of grievance against the final
       outcome, shall have a right to approach the Court of law.”
       11.3 Thereafter it was the respondent – contractor who himself             C
submitted the claim before the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner. The
Arbitrator - Housing Commissioner issued notice upon the respondent –
contractor. However, after submitting the claims, the respondent –
contractor did not appear before the learned Arbitrator – Housing
Commissioner and consequently on appreciation of evidence and                     D
considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, the learned
Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner passed an award dated 07.11.2008.
Subsequently, respondent – contractor filed a reference before the learned
Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the provisions of 1983 Act making
the very claims which were made before the High Court in Writ Petition
No.9131 of 2008 as well as made before the learned Arbitrator – Housing           E
Commissioner.
       At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the Reference Petition
there was no reference to the order passed by the High Court in Writ
Petition No.9131 of 2008 referring the disputes between the parties to
the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner and thereafter submitting the               F
claims before the Housing Commissioner and the award passed by the
learned Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner dated 07.11.2008. A detailed
written statement was filed. The relevant extracts of the written
statement are as under:
       1.     “The claim was also filed by the petitioner to the Housing          G
              Commissioner of Respondents which was duly decided
              complying with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of
              M.P.
       2.     The Hon’ble High Court by Order dated 20.08.2008 in Writ
              Petition No. 9131/2008 directed the Commissioner of M.P.            H
1098        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A            Housing Board to decide the application of interim stay filed
              by the Contractor before re-tendering of the works. The
              Directions were also issued for final hearing under clause
              29 of the agreement with in the provision of agreement.
              The Hon’ble Commissioner had fully complied with the
              directions of the Hon’ble High Court and the Contractor
 B
              was duly notice but even than the Contractor did not take
              any pains even to see the order of Commissioner dt.
              07.11.08, which was passed by him in compliance with the
              directions of the Hon’ble High Court.
       3.     The petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief as he has
 C            not come before this Hon’ble M.P. Arbitration Tribunal with
              clean hands and the facts of paramount importance have
              been deliberately suppressed by the petitioner in the said
              petition.
       4.     That as per the directions order by Hon. High Court, the
 D            matter has already been decided and award has already
              been passed and duly acknowledged by the petitioner hence
              the petition filed before the Hon’ble MP Arbitration Tribunal
              deserved to be dismissed, no relief can be claimed.
       5.     That the petitioner has duly accepted the award as it evident
 E            from his action that he has accepted the payment so ordered
              by the Arbitrator the Housing Commissioner in the said
              award. In compliance with the award dated 07.11.2008
              passed by the Commissioner the petitioner has already
              received the payment as per award as is evident from the
 F            letter dated 02.11.2009 the award so received is Rs.
              3,57,000/- in total through cheque dated 02.01.2009.
       6.     That from the action and reactions of petitioner it is evident
              that the petitioner has accepted the award without
              challenging it before the appropriate court prior to accepting
 G            the payments awarded by the Arbitrator in the light of orders
              of Hon’ble High Court has been accepted and agreed by
              the Petitioner. Keeping in view of this legal proceedings,
              this petition of the Petitioner does not even deserves for
              admission as the final adjudication was complete by the
              Order of the Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board, issued
 H            under the directions of the Hon’ble High Court.”
  M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                                1099
         BOARD v. K.P. DWIVEDI [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       11.4 That the appellants filed I.A. No.1 raising preliminary issues   A
with respect to maintainability of the reference before the learned
Tribunal. The learned Arbitral Tribunal framed the following preliminary
issues:
      “(i) Whether the Petitioner has complied with provisions of clause
      29 before approaching this Tribunal?                                   B
      (ii) Whether the Petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition
      when the appointed arbitrator by the Hon’ble High Court with
      consent passed the award dated 07.11.2008 and acted upon?”
       11.5 That by a detailed order and considering the order passed by
the High Court dated 20.08.2008 referring the disputes between the           C
parties to the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner; the claims made before
the High Court as well as before the learned Tribunal dismissed the
reference by holding that the Reference Petition is not maintainable.
While dismissing the Reference Petition as not maintainable in para 18,
the learned Arbitral Tribunal observed as under:                             D
      “On perusal of the order dated 20.08.2008 (Ex. D/18) passed by
      the Hon’ble High Court it seems that the said order was passed
      with the consent of both the parties. The order indicates that the
      Housing Commissioner was appointed as arbitrator to decide the
      dispute between the parties. The contention of the learned Counsel     E
      of the Petitioner that the Housing Commissioner was directed to
      decide the Petitioner’s quantified claim by invoking clause 29 as
      competent authority does not appear to be acceptable because
      the Housing Commissioner has been designated in the order as
      the Arbitrator. Moreover, the Housing Commissioner was not
      directed to decide the dispute as competent authority. Apart from      F
      this, under clause 29 there are only two competent authorities,
      first, is Dy. Housing Commissioner and if he fails to decide the
      dispute within 60 days second is Additional Housing Commissioner.
      There is no provision to decide the quantified claim by the 3rd
      competent authority. Besides it, Hon’ble High Court has no power       G
      to create/ appoint a third competent authority by invoking the power
      clause 29 of the agreement, but Hon’ble High Court has the power
      to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Act, 1996.
      Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it can only be
      inferred that the Hon’ble High Court exercising the power vested
      in it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India appointed the     H
1100            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A           Housing Commissioner as Arbitrator to decide the dispute. The
             submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that
             appointment of Arbitrator is without jurisdiction and the said order
             dated 20.08.2008 does not have over riding effect on the provisions
             of the Act, 1983 and the said order being per incurium has no
             force appears to be sound but this Tribunal has no power to say
 B
             that the order dated 20.08.2008 passed by the Hon’ble High Court
             in writ jurisdiction is without jurisdiction and has effect of nullity
             because this Tribunal is subordinate of the Hon’ble High Court
             which has supervisory power over it under Article 227 of
             Constitution of India. Moreover, the award passed by this Tribunal
 C           is challengeable before the Hon’ble High Court under Section 19
             of the Act, 1983 by the Civil Revision. If the Petitioner was not
             satisfied with the order dated 20.08.2008 passed by the Hon’ble
             High Court, the propriety and the legality of the said order ought
             to have been challenged by the Petitioner before the competent
             forum but it was not done so. Moreover, the said order was passed
 D
             with the consent of both the parties. In the said circumstances,
             this Tribunal is bound to accept the order passed by the Hon’ble
             High Court. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
             of the case, it can be safely inferred that Housing Commissioner
             was appointed by the Hon’ble High Court to decide the dispute
 E           between the parties as the Arbitrator who decided the same vide
             award dated 07.11.2008. The legality and the propriety of the said
             award could have been challenged by filing appeal under Section
             34 of the Act, 1996 but the Petitioner failed to do so, consequently,
             the said award had achieved finality before filing the reference
             petition. Once the dispute between the parties had already been
 F
             decided by the competent Arbitrator, the same dispute cannot be
             reagitated before this Tribunal by the Petitioner. the Hon’ble High
             Court in the case of Ditya (supra) elaborately discussing in para
             12 has held that even a wrong decisions are taken which is contrary
             to the law is binding upon the parties unless and until it is set aside
 G           in the appeal or by the other remedy provided under the clause.”
             12. After the aforesaid order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the
       learned Tribunal holding that the reference petition was not maintainable
       in view of the earlier order passed by the High Court dated 20.08.2008
       passed in Writ Petition No.9131 of 2008 directing the adjudication of the
 H     dispute by the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner, the respondent –
  M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                                   1101
         BOARD v. K.P. DWIVEDI [M. R. SHAH, J.]

contractor filed a review petition before the High Court, having realized       A
that the order dated 20.08.2008 passed in the Writ Petition No.9131 of
2008 will come in his way in pursuing the reference petition before the
learned Arbitral Tribunal, seeking clarification of the order passed in
W.P. No.9131 of 2008 to the extent that by directing the adjudication of
the dispute by the Housing Commissioner, it does not take away the
                                                                                B
jurisdiction of the learned Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Act
1983. The said review petition was opposed by the appellants. Vide
order dated 07.09.2017 the High Court dismissed the said review petition.
Thereafter the respondent – contractor filed the revision application
before the High Court under Section 19 of the 1983 Act being Arbitration
Revision No.13 of 2017 challenging the order dated 27.02.2017 passed            C
by the learned Arbitral Tribunal dismissing the reference petition as not
maintainable. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court, relying
upon the subsequent decision of the full Bench has set aside the order
passed by the learned Tribunal on 27.02.2017 and has directed the learned
Arbitral Tribunal to decide the reference on merit. The impugned judgment
                                                                                D
and order passed by the High Court in A.R. No.13 of 2017 is the subject
matter of present appeal.
       13. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such the earlier
order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.9131 of 2008, by
which the dispute between the parties was referred to the Arbitrator –
                                                                                E
Housing Commissioner was a consent order. It was the respondent –
contractor who filed the Writ Petition No.9131 of 2008 submitting that
he has invoked the arbitration clause. Thereafter the respondent –
contractor submitted the claim before the Arbitrator – Housing
Commissioner who passed an award. The respondent – contractor did
not challenge the award passed by the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner         F
and therefore, as such the award passed by the Arbitrator – Housing
Commissioner dated 07.11.2008 has attained finality.
       14. The case of the respondent – contractor that the earlier order
passed by the High Court dated 20.08.2008 passed in Writ Petition
No.9131 of 2008, referring the dispute between the parties for adjudication     G
to the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner and thereafter the award
declared by the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner dated 07.11.2008
are non-est and void and therefore, it was open for the contractor to file
a fresh reference petition before the learned Arbitral Tribunal under
Section 7 of the 1983 Act, cannot be accepted for the following reasons:
                                                                                H
1102          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A     (i)      It was the respondent – contractor who approached the
                High Court by filing Writ Petition No.9131 of 2008 submitting
                that he has invoked the arbitration clause;
       (ii)     The order passed by the High Court dated 20.08.2008 passed
                in Writ Petition No.9131 of 2008 referring the dispute
 B              between the parties to the Arbitrator – Housing
                Commissioner was a consent order;
       (iii)    Thereafter the respondent – contractor submitted the claims
                before the learned Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner;
       (iv)     The learned Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner passed an
 C              award which has attained the finality;
       (v)      That the review petition filed by the contractor for
                clarification of the order dated 20.08.2008 passed in Writ
                Petition No.9131 of 2008 to clarify the aforesaid order to
                the extent that it did not take away the right of the contractor
 D              to file the reference petition before the learned Arbitral
                Tribunal under the 1983 Act came to be rejected and the
                same also attained finality;
       (vi)     The claims submitted before the Arbitrator – Housing
                Commissioner; before the High Court in Writ Petition
 E              No.9131 of 2008; and the claim submitted in Reference
                Petition before the learned Arbitral Tribunal under the 1983
                Act are the same without any change;
       (vii)    In the subsequent reference petition before the learned
                Arbitral Tribunal under the 1983 Act there was no reference
 F              to the earlier order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition
                No.9131 of 2008 referring the dispute between the parties
                for adjudication to Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner and
                the award passed by the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner.
                Thus, there was a suppression on the part of the respondent
                – contractor;
 G
       (viii) The order passed by the High Court dated 20.08.2008 passed
              in Writ Petition No.9131 of 2008 referring the dispute
              between the parties for adjudication to the Arbitrator –
              Housing Commissioner as such was a consent order and
              thereafter the contractor participated in the arbitration
 H
  M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                                 1103
         BOARD v. K.P. DWIVEDI [M. R. SHAH, J.]

             proceedings before the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner         A
             by submitting the claim is binding between the parties on
             the ground of ‘issue estoppel’.
       15. In the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain (supra) it is observed and
held that a cause of action estoppel arises where in two different
proceedings identical issues are raised, in which event, the latter           B
proceedings between the same parties shall be dealt with similarly as
was done in the previous proceedings. In such an event, the bar is absolute
in relation to all points decided save and except allegation of fraud and
collusion.
       16. Apart from the fact that the award declared by the Arbitrator      C
– Housing Commissioner was not challenged by the respondent –
contractor, even, so long as the said award is not challenged before the
higher forum the same is binding between the parties. Even the award
or a nullity order has to be challenged before the appropriate forum/
higher forum. In the present case it cannot be said that there was a total
lack of jurisdiction of the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner in passing      D
the award as it was the High Court who passed the order with consent
referring the dispute between the parties for the adjudication to the
Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner. Therefore, unless and until it was
challenged by the contractor before the higher forum, the respondent –
contractor cannot be permitted to ignore and/or to avoid the award passed     E
by the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner dated 07.11.2008.
      17. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that what was filed
before the High Court was the revision application filed by the contractor
under Section 19 of the 1983 Act rejecting the reference petition as not
maintainable. Section 19 of the 1983 Act reads as under:
                                                                              F
      “19. High Court’s power of revision. – The High Court may suo
      motu at any time or an application for revision made to it within
      three months of the award by an aggrieved party, call for the
      record of any case in which an award has been made under this
      Act by issuing a requisition to the Tribunal and upon receipt of
      such requisition, the Tribunal shall send or cause to be sent to that   G
      Court the concerned award and record thereof;
      Provided that any application for revision may be admitted after
      the prescribed period of three months, if the applicant satisfied
      the High Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the
      revision with such period.                                              H
1104            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A           Explanation: - The fact that the applicant was misled by any order,
             practice or judgment or the High Court in ascertaining or computing
             the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning
             of this sub-section.
             (2) If it appears to the High Court that the Tribunal-
 B              (a)    has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
                (b)    has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
                (c)    has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally, or with
                       material irregularity; or
 C              (d)    has misconducted itself or the proceedings; or
                (e)    has made an award which is invalid or has been
                       improperly procured by any party to the proceedings,
             the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.
             (3) The High Court shall in deciding any revision under this section
 D           exercise the same powers and follow the same procedure as far
             as may be, as it does in deciding a revision under Section 115 of
             the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (No. 5 of 1908).
             (4) The High Court shall cause a copy of its order in revision to be
             certified to the Tribunal.
 E           Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, an award shall
             include an ‘interim’ award.”
              Therefore, as per Section 19 of the 1983 Act, Revision Application
       to the High Court shall be maintainable only against the award passed
       by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, prima facie it appears that
 F     as such the order passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the
       reference petition was not maintainable as by order dated 27.02.2017,
       no award was passed by the Tribunal. However, as no such objection
       was raised before the High Court and no submission has been made by
       the parties, we rest the matter there.
 G             18. Even otherwise it is required to be noted that while passing
       the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has not set aside the
       award passed by the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner dated
       07.11.2008. Therefore, technically speaking the award passed by the
       Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner dated 07.11.2008 stands even today.
       It is binding between the parties. So long as the award passed by the
 H
  M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                                   1105
         BOARD v. K.P. DWIVEDI [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner dated 07.11.2008 stands, there cannot         A
be any subsequent fresh proceeding with respect to the same claims
which were considered and adjudicated by the Arbitrator – Housing
Commissioner while passing the award dated 07.11.2008. So long as the
said award stands it is binding between the parties.
        19. Even otherwise it is required to be noted that no objection was     B
raised by the respondent – contractor before the Arbitrator – Housing
Commissioner on the jurisdiction of the Housing Commissioner to act as
an Arbitrator. On the contrary as observed hereinabove the order passed
by the High Court referring the dispute between the parties for
adjudication to the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner was a consent
order and the respondent - contractor conceded to and accepted the              C
said order and submitted his claim before the Arbitrator – Housing
Commissioner. The Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner also passed an
award on the said claim. Therefore, as no objections were raised by the
respondent – contractor at the appropriate stage, the award cannot be
annulled subsequently. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that at no     D
point of time the respondent – contractor had challenged the award
passed by the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner and as observed and
held hereinabove even no court has set aside the award declared by the
Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner dated 07.11.2008 and the same has
attained finality. Therefore, the same is binding between the parties.
Hence, the subsequent fresh reference petition before the learned Arbitral      E
Tribunal under the 1983 Act for the very same claims which were raised
before the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner would not be maintainable
at all. We agree with the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal.
       20. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated              F
08.05.2018 passed by the High Court in A.R. No.11, 12 & 13/2017
quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal
constituted under the 1983 Act dated 27.02.2017 is hereby quashed and
set aside and the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal dated 27.02.2017
stands restored.                                                                G
      All these appeals are allowed accordingly. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.


Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeals allowed.
                                                                                H