STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. CHAHAL AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Order passed in this Misc. Appeal shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 350/90 between the same parties.

(2.) In both the appeals, the same point is involved and the common question arising in the two appeals which has been referred by the Division Bench consisting of Dharmadhikari and Issrani, JJ. for decision by a Larger Bench is whether an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act pending in the Civil Court prior to the date of constitution of the Arbitration Tribunal, i.e. 1 -3 -1985, would be saved by the provisions of Section 20(2) of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983? Hence this Full Bench for a decision of the aforementioned question of law.

(3.) A Division Bench consisting of B.C. Varma, J. as he then was, and Rampal Singh, J. by its judgment and Order dated 24 -8 -1987, in M.A. No. 168 of 1985, M/s Firm Trilok Chand Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh had taken the view that the arbitration proceedings pending before any Tribunal within the meaning of Section 20(2) of the M.P.Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam), (Act No. 29 of 1983), means that an application filed before the Court under sub - section (1) of Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 awaiting the decision of the Court for a decision to refer the matter for arbitration, could not be said to be an arbitration proceeding pending before any Tribunal or Court within the meaning of the Adhiniyam. The Division Bench referring these cases to this Full Bench, has doubted the correctness of the aforesaid decision and taken the view, broadly speaking, that even an application under Sub -section (1) of Section 20 of the Arbitration Act which was pending in any Court before the date on which the Tribunal was constituted under the Adhiniyam, would be saved by Sub -section (2) of Section 20 of the Adhiniyam.