Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR.versusM/S. KMC CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Citation
2018 INSC 360
Decided
18 April 2018
Disposal
Disposed off

Holding

The MP Arbitration Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, and the direction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is set aside.

Summary

The State of Chhattisgarh appealed against an order of the High Court that had directed the parties to approach the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for resolution of a dispute with M/S KMC Construction Limited. The Supreme Court examined whether the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (MP Act) conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the MP Arbitration Tribunal over the matter, notwithstanding Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Relying on its earlier decision in Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers, the Court held that the MP Arbitration Tribunal indeed has exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court’s direction under Section 11 was set aside and the parties were ordered to proceed before the MP Arbitration Tribunal. The appeals were disposed of, effectively dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the MP Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 has exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute despite the provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
  • Whether the High Court's direction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be sustained.

Legislation cited

Subjects

ArbitrationJurisdictionExclusive jurisdictionArbitration and Conciliation Act 1996Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam 1983Supreme Court

Judgment

270                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    4 S.C.R. 270               [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A                  STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR.
                                        v.
                   M/S. KMC CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
                         (Civil appeal No. 4257 of 2018)
B                               APRIL 18, 2018
          [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
            Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983:
            Jurisdiction of Arbitration Tribunal – Held: The Arbitration
C     Tribunal constituted under the Act has the exclusive jurisdiction to
      deal with the dispute in question – Impugned direction set aside –
      Matter relegated to the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the
      Act.
            Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority
D           and Anr. v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors
            (2012) 2 SCC 495 : [2012] 2 SCR 162 – relied on.
                              Case Law Reference
            [2012] 2 SCR 162          relied on               Para 3

E           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4257
      of 2018.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 10.07.2018 of the High Court
      of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Arbitration Application No. 44 of 2016.
                                      WITH
F
            C. A. Nos. 4258 and 4259 of 2018.
            Saurabh Mishra, AAG., Jugal Kishore Gilda, Purushaindra Kumar,
      Advs. Gen., Naman Nagrath, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Parag Triathi,
      Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Advs., Harsh Parashar, Jubin Prasad, Aman Pandey,
      Jasdeep S. Dhillon, Prabhat K. Chaurasia, Ms. Renuka Sahu, Jay Savla,
G     Amar Varun, Shantanu Krishna, Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Dhurav Mishra,
      Divyanshu Kumar Srivastav, Akash Lamba, Viren Sibal, Vivekananda
      B., Vikas Sood, Apporv Kurup, Ms. Isha Mital, Dr. Harsh Pathak,
      Ms. Shweta Mahajan, Mohit Chaubey, Siddharth Shukla, Neeraj Shekhar,
      Arjun Garg, Mishra Saurabh, Sridhar Potaraju, Sudhir Mishra, Prabhat
H
                                       270
  STATE OF CHHATTISGARH v. M/S. KMC CONSTRUCTION                                    271
                     LIMITED

Kumar, Ms. Petal Chandok, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Rishabh,                               A
M. R. Shamshad, Aditya Samaddar, B. S. Banthia, Ms. Swarupama
Chaturvedi, Saurabh S. Sinha, Aditya Dev Triguna, Sunil Singh Parihar,
M/S. AP & J Chambers, Prafulla Kumar Behera, Manish K. Bhardwaj,
S. S. Nehra, Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Varun Mohan,
Swastik Singh, Manish Yadav, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, B.N. Dubey,
                                                                                    B
Ms. Devika Gulati, Hitendra Nath Rath, Mayank Kshirsagar, Pavesh
Joshi, Chavu Ambwani (For M/S. AP & J Chambers), B. K. Satija,
Sumit Attri, K. Krishna Kumar, Hitendra Nath Rath, Nilava
Bandyopadhayay, Rahul Pandey, Advs. for the appearing parties.
       The following Order of the Court was passed:
                                                                                    C
                                ORDER
       1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
      2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
                                                                                    D
       3. 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 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.     E
Accordingly, the impugned direction under Section 11 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be sustained and is set aside.
      4. 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).                                                         F
       5. The appeals are disposed of.
      6. The parties may appear before the Tribunal for further
proceedings on 9th July, 2018.
     7. It will be open to the respondents to file the very same claim              G
which has already been filed before the Arbitrator.


Kalpana K. Tripathy                                          Appeals disposed of.


                                                                                    H


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Arbitration"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.