M/S GANGOTRI ENTERPRISES LTD v. MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2017 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat, Jabalpur in A. C. No. 71 of 2016. 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, 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 260 M/S GANGOTRI ENTERPRISES LTD. v. MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 261 Kumar, Ms. Petal Chandok, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Rishabh, 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, 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:

O R D E R

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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.”

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 claims/ counter claims of the parties.

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.

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.