SHIV DAYAL KALRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 6-7-2010 passed in Case No. 64/2008 by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, whereby it has held that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.

(2.) Admittedly, the parties have entered into an agreement relating to works contract. It is also not in dispute that there is an Arbitration Clause (GCC Clause 25.3) in the contract which provides that all the disputes or differences where valued amount of claim is Rs. 50,000/- or more any party dissatisfied with the decision of the adjudicator may refer such decision to the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1982.

(3.) Recently, the Supreme Court in Ravikant Bansal Vs. M.P. Rural Road Development Authority and another, 2011 4 MPHT 115 [Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18867/2011 by order dated 29-7-2011] has held that when such an arbitration clause exists in the contract, arbitration has to be done by the Arbitration Tribunal and its earlier decision in VA Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. Vs. M.P.S.E. Board and another, 2010 2 MPHT 13 (dated 14-1-2010 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3746/2005), is distinguishable because in that case there was no such arbitration clause.