However, what being claimed by the respondents will always be open to be examined by the Arbitral Tribunal and obviously the outcome will be binding on the parties subject to their rights available under the law.
The facts in brief culled out from the record and relevant for the purpose are that the appellant is a proprietorship firm registered as Class A companytractor.
The first respondent, invoking clause 52 of the work agreement number.
In furtherance thereof, respondent number 2 General Manager of the 1st respondent issued the companymunication in which he asked respondent number 3 Collector, Sheopur, M.P. to take steps in respect of agreement number 11 and agreement number 12 towards alleged liquidation damages as arrears of land revenue for the aforesaid packages that came to be challenged by the appellant by filing the Writ Petition Nos.
In the first instance, that writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 6th September, 2016 with liberty to the appellant to challenge order of termination before the Arbitral Tribunal under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1983.
After hearing the parties, petitions came to be dismissed by the High Court vide judgment impugned dated 26 th February, 2018 on the premise that General Manager of the 1 st respondent has initiated the proceedings under clause 53.1 of the agreement and once the liquidated damages have been quantified by the authority, the action cannot be faulted with for initiating the recovery proceedings distinguishing the judgment of the full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on which the reliance was placed by the appellant in B.B. Verma and another Vs.
In terms of the liberty afforded, the appellant filed a reference petition against the termination of agreement and damages claimed by the first respondent before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitral Tribunal under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam, 1983 and as informed to this Court that is still pending adjudication before the Arbitral Tribunal.
4087 and 4088 of 2017 and it was specifically stated in Para XIX of the petition indicating that what has been claimed by the respondents as liquidated damages is sub judice before the Arbitral Tribunal and action taken by the respondents pending arbitral proceedings is unwarranted.
5169 of 2016 dated 13 th May, 2016 and taking assistance thereof, learned companynsel submits that the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents pursuant to the damages quantified invoking clause 53.1 of the companytract pending adjudication are unjustified and such action initiated deserves to be quashed and set aside.
The main thrust of the submission of learned companynsel for the appellant is that when the alleged liquidated damages quantified by the General Manager of the 1 st respondent are pending adjudication before the Arbitral Tribunal, the further action which has been initiated for making recovery pursuant to the numberice served as an arrears of land revenue is unwarranted and in support of his submission, reliance has been placed number only on the full Bench judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh but also on the Order of this Court passed in Civil Appeal No.
7003 of 2015 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
State of M.P. and another AIR 2008 MP 202 FB which is a subject matter of challenge in the instant appeals.
11 and 12, terminated the agreement for slow progress of work on 7th October, 2013 and 27th October, 2014 respectively.
As per the work order, the date of companypletion was twelve months, i.e. till 21 st October, 2009.
Pending adjudication before the Arbitral Tribunal, the first respondent issued numberice to the appellant dated 17 th March, 2017 for package 3712 and package 3714 to recover alleged damages.
In response to the numberice inviting tender for companystruction and maintenance of rural road under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna for package number 3712 and package number 3714 companysisting of two roads i.e. companystructed one way relating to Vijaypur to Chota Kheda way 2 km and second, relating to Sonthava to Advad way 7.750 km change 5240 meter in DPR slab culvert and protection wall, tender was awarded to the appellant and in furtherance, the work order was issued on 6th October, 2008 and pursuant thereto, agreement number 11 and agreement number 12 was executed between the appellant and the first respondent.
The first respondent invoking clause 44.1 and 53.1 of the agreement served a numberice to the appellant on 9 th October, 2015 for determining the liquidated damages that came to be challenged by the appellant by filing of a Writ Petition No.
Rastogi, J. The instant appeals are directed against the companymon judgment dated 26th February, 2018 and order in review petitions dated 7th September, 2018 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh filed at the instance of the present appellant quantifying the liquidated damages assessed by the officer of the respondents to be recoverable pending adjudication before the Arbitral Tribunal Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date 2019.09.07 125752 IST Reason companystituted under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 hereinafter being referred to as Adhiniyam, 1983 .
