STATE OF GUJARAT v. AMBER BUILDERS

1.2 Reference and procedure of the Tribunal is governed by Chapter 3 of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992. Section 8 provides that where any dispute within the meaning of the said Act, arises between the parties, the said dispute shall be referred to arbitration under the said Act whether the agreement in question contained an arbitration clause or not. Basically, the intention of the State Legislature was that all disputes relating to works contract between the State Government and the persons executing the works defined as works contract would be compulsorily referred to the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Section 3 of the Gujarat Act. Section 8(3) clearly provides that where the Tribunal admits a reference under sub-section (2) it will make an award or an interim award giving its reasons thereof. This Section recognizes the power of the Tribunal to make interim awards. However, the Tribunal took a view that an interim award could not be in the nature of an injunction. The practice and procedure of the Tribunal is governed by Section 9 of the Act. Section 12 of the Act vests revisional powers in the High Court of Gujarat where an award or any interim award can be challenged on the grounds set out therein. The High Court also has suo motu powers in this regard. Section 13 specifically bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. This clearly means that powers vested in a Civil Court under the A&C Act, such as the powers to grant interim relief in terms of Section 9 of the A&C Act and the powers for setting aside an A B C D E F G H 782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R. award under Section 34 of the Act cannot be exercised by Civil Courts insofar as the awards made under the Gujarat Act are concerned. As far as Gujarat Act is concerned, the power to set aside/modify an award is vested in the High Court under Section 12. The appropriate remedy for the contractor was to approach the arbitral tribunal constituted under the Gujarat Act since that would have jurisdiction to decide whether the notice issued by the Government was a legal notice and whether the Government was, in fact, entitled to recover any amount from the contractor. It would also be within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide whether the contractor has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief. The Court is purposely not going into the merits of the case because once it is held that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute it would not be proper to make any comments on the merits. [Paras 16- 18][789-B-E, H; 790-A, C-E]

1.3 On a conjoint reading and a careful analysis of the Acts together, the Court is of the view that insofar as the powers vested in the Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the Section 17 of the A&C Act are concerned, such powers can be exercised by the Tribunal constituted under the Gujarat Act because there is no inconsistency in these two Acts as far as the grant of interim relief is concerned. This power is already vested in the tribunal under the Gujarat Act and Section 17 of the A&C Act compliments these powers and therefore it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 17 of the A&C Act are inconsistent with the Gujarat Act. The judgments of the High Court of Gujarat are set aside. However, liberty is given to the contractor(s) to approach the Gujarat Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal and if the Tribunal is approached within 2 months from today, the tribunal shall not dismiss the claim on the issue of limitation. It shall decide the same on merits. [Paras 21, 22][793-D-G] Gangotri Enterprises Limited v. Union of India and Others (2016) 11 SCC 720 : [2016] 2 SCR 1074 – held per incuriam. State of Karnataka vs. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills, Thirthahalli (1987) 2 SCC 160 : [1987] 2 SCR 398; A B C D E F G H STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR. v. AMBER BUILDERS 783