MANISH PIPES PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid civil revisions have been filed under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (in short "the Act, 1983") against the order dated 20-5-2011 passed by Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur, whereby the application of the applicant under Section 17-A of the Act, 1983 has been treated as an application for withdrawing both the Reference Cases filed under Section 7 of the Act, 1983 with liberty to approach Appropriate Court/ Forum under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and allowed to that extent only, but the prayer of the applicant for refund of the Court fee paid alongwith both the reference cases have been refused. Brief facts of the case are that in respect of two works contracts that the dispute arose between the parties and as per arbitration clause contained in the work contracts, the dispute was referred to the arbitrator, against whose awards the abovementioned two reference cases, i.e., Ref. Case Nos. 1/09 and 1/10 were filed under Section 7 of the Act, 1983 before the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran (in short "the Tribunal"). However, during pendency of both the reference cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.A. Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. Vs. M.P.S.E. Board and another, 2010 2 MPHT 13 , laid down that even in a work contract if there is an arbitration clause, then the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Act, 1983 stands ousted and the reference is to be made under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "the Act, 1996"). Therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, an application on behalf of the applicant was moved in Reference Case No. 1/09 under Section 17-A of the Act, 1983 intimating the Tribunal that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of V.A. Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. , the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and for passing appropriate orders. However, the Tribunal treating the said application as an application for withdrawing both the reference cases with liberty to approach Appropriate Court/Forum under the provisions of the Act, 1996, allowed the application to that extent, but, vide Para 8 of the impugned order, refused to grant refund of the Court fee, which was deposited alongwith both the reference cases. It is against this refusal to refund the Court fee, that the present revision petitions have been filed.

(2.) The dispute arising out of the work contract between the parties was referred for arbitration under Clause 17 of the agreement to the Arbitral Tribunal and against the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on 3-3-2009, that reference was made under Section 7 of the Act, 1983 to the Tribunal.

(3.) Contention of learned Counsel for the applicant is that when the Tribunal after considering his application under Section 17-A of the Act, 1983 as an application for withdrawal of reference with liberty to file the same before the Appropriate Court/Forum under the provisions of the Act, 1996, has returned the reference for presentation before the Appropriate Forum, then the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to refuse refund of the Court fee paid alongwith the reference.