M/S Scc Projets Pvt. Limited Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1050186
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJul-31-2013
AppellantM/S Scc Projets Pvt. Limited
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
m/s.scc projects pvt.ltd versus state of m.p.& ors.w.p. no ::17784. ”31. 07.2013. shri greeshm jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri sanjay dwivedi, learned government advocate for the respondent/state. we have taken note of the prayer made in the amendment application vide i.a.no.9774/2013 and after being appraised of the fact that an earlier writ petition was filed in indore bench and same is being withdrawn, we propose to deal with the matter. having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of clause 29 of the agreement in question, it is clear that with regard to any dispute arising out of agreement in question, which is a work contract, the provisions of m.p.madhyastam adhiniyam are applicable. that being so, if the appellate authority, namely the engineer-in-chief does not decide the appeal within 90 days, then remedy available to the petitioner is to invoke jurisdiction available to approach the m.p.arbitration tribunal constituted under the m.p.madhyastam adhiniyam 1983, wherein provisions of appeal is contemplated for seeking reference. that being so, it is not appropriate for this court to interfere into the matter and direct the appellate authority to 2 decide the appeal, when petitioner has a statutory efficacious remedy to seek reference of the dispute before the arbitration tribunal. accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recours.to the said remedy, this petition is disposed of. (rajendra menon) (smt. vimla jain) judge judge . ss/-
Judgment:

M/S.SCC Projects PVT.Ltd versus State of M.P.& Ors.W.P.

No ::

17784. ”

31. 07.2013.

Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

We have taken note of the prayer made in the amendment application vide I.A.No.9774/2013 and after being appraised of the fact that an earlier writ petition was filed in Indore Bench and same is being withdrawn, we propose to deal with the matter.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of clause 29 of the agreement in question, it is clear that with regard to any dispute arising out of agreement in question, which is a work contract, the provisions of M.P.Madhyastam Adhiniyam are applicable.

That being so, if the appellate authority, namely the Engineer-in-Chief does not decide the appeal within 90 days, then remedy available to the petitioner is to invoke jurisdiction available to approach the M.P.Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the M.P.Madhyastam Adhiniyam 1983, wherein provisions of appeal is contemplated for seeking reference.

That being so, it is not appropriate for this Court to interfere into the matter and direct the appellate authority to 2 decide the appeal, when petitioner has a statutory efficacious remedy to seek reference of the dispute before the arbitration tribunal.

Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the said remedy, this petition is disposed of.

(RAJENDRA MENON) (SMT.

VIMLA JAIN) JUDGE JUDGE .

ss/-