Shri Gouri Ganesh Shri Balaji Constructions “C” Class Contractor Vs. Executive Engineer, PWD

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

Arbitration Case, 40 of 2016, Judgment Date: May 03, 2018

Law Laid Down -

• The expression “ascertained amount” appearing in Section 2(1)(d) of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short “the State Act”) includes the amount of consequential relief.
• Mere declaration of termination of contract is not the substantial relief and in the guise of mere declaration an aggrieved person cannot be permitted to omit the consequential relief which the party may be entitled to claim in a reference under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.
• It is held that reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 7-A of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 makes it abundantly clear that if a consequential relief was available to an aggrieved person before the date of making reference under Sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the State Act yet he failed to include the claim of consequential relief, such person will not be entitled to claim such relief in any subsequent proceedings.
• As regards the second question framed, challenge to revenue recovery certificate under the guise of challenge to only termination of agreement is not tenable because the consequential relief is to that of challenge to recovery certificate.
• The view expressed in Single Bench decisions of this Court reported as 2003 (1) M.P.H.T 205 (M.P. Housing Board vs. Satish Kumar Raizada) and order dated 16.02.2010 passed in M.A. No. 1030/1999 (M.P. Housing Board vs. Satish Kumar Raizada) is not the correct enunciation of law. There cannot be any simpliciter declaration of fixation of rates of work. An aggrieved person has to claim a particular rate of work which the Court may or may not grant but the quantification of rate of work was required to be made. The astuteness in drafting of the reference so as to not to claim any money though ascertainable will not oust the reference before the statutory Arbitral Tribunal under the State Law.
• The finding recorded by a Full Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as 2017 (2) MPLJ 681 (Viva Highways Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd.) to the extent that if the State Act is not applicable and there is arbitration clause, the aggrieved person has the liberty to invoke the Central Act is not tenable. - Orders of the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.974/2012 (Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Another vs. M/s L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors) and Civil Appeal No.2615/2018 (State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Gammon India Ltd.) - Relied.

Shri Gouri Ganesh Shri Balaji Constructions “C” Class Contractor Vs. Executive Engineer, PWD