Va Tech filed an application under Section 9 of the A.C. Act 1996 which was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge and that order was also upheld by the High Court.
MPSE Board another Civil Appeal No.
impugning the judgment of the High Court dated 8.9.2010 in this appeal, entered into a Works Contract with the respondent for companystruction and maintenance of Rural Road Package No.1958, District Jhabua.
In the pending dispute, the respondent submitted additional claim on 24.2.2010 and requested the appellant to appoint an Arbitrator for adjudicating the dispute between the parties.
But in so far as the instant matter is companycerned, the facts disclose that the appellant M.P. Rural Road Development Authority cancelled the works companytract itself which was executed in favour of the respondent.
Then on 24.6.2010 respondent filed an application under Section 11 of A.C. Act 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator before the High Court.
Thereafter, on 29.8.2008, the respondent submitted a representation to the appellant against the encashment of bank guarantee.
The case of the appellant is that in view of several breaches in Works Contract by the respondent, the appellant terminated the Works Contract and encashed the bank guarantee furnished by the respondent on 25.6.2008.
4491/2008 challenging the encashment of bank guarantee and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the bank guarantee may number be encashed till the disposal of the representation.
Hence, in addition to the reasons assigned in the judgment and order of learned Brother Justice Ganguly, disputes arising out of execution of works companytract has to be referred to the M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal and number under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Then Va Tech filed a special leave petition before this Court.
As a companysequence and fall out of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order of the High Court by which the dispute relating to termination of works companytract by the M.P. Rural Road Development Authority itself was referred to an independent arbitrator appointed by the High Court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 needs to be sustained and there is numberneed for a de numbero reference of the dispute to the M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal.
The appellant Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Anr.,
Prior to that on 5.8.2008, respondent filed a Writ Petition No.
In the case of Va Tech supra , this Court after referring to both the M.P. Act and the A.C. Act 1996, held that the M.P. Act applies only where there is numberarbitration clause and this Court further held that the M.P. Act stands impliedly repealed by the A.C. Act 1996 where there is an arbitration clause.
On 8.9.2010, High Court allowed the application of the respondent and appointed an Arbitrator by placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. Vs.
Thereafter, on 4.6.2009 the representation of the respondent was rejected after giving the appellant a personal hearing.
The facts leading to the aforesaid companytroversy be numbered first.
Facts in companynection with the Va Tech supra were that Va Tech was awarded a works companytract by the P. State Electricity Board and there was an arbitration clause in the agreement.
3746 and 3747 of 2005.
