Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bharatkumar Dhanjibhai Parmar on 12 January, 2022
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
C/SCA/10504/2014 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10504 of 2014
=====================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
Versus
BHARATKUMAR DHANJIBHAI PARMAR
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR. ISHAN JOSHI, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. HJ KARATHIYA(7012) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 12/01/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The present writ-application is filed by the State
Government under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
the following reliefs:
"A. Your Lordships be pleased to admit/allow
the present Petition;
B. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writ
in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing
and setting aside the impugned order dated
04.10.2010 passed in Arbitration Reference No.
212 of 1996 by the Learned Gujarat Public
Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal,
Ahmedabad, in the interest of justice;
C. Pending the hearing, admission and final
disposal of the present Petition, Your Lordships
C/SCA/10504/2014 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2022
may be pleased to stay of execution,
implementation and operation of the impugned
order dated 04.10.20210 passed in Arbitration
Reference No. 212 of 1996 by the Learned
Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes
Arbitration Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in the interest
of justice;
D. Pending hearing, admission and final disposal
of the present petition, Your Lordship may be
pleased to stay proceeding started before the
Arbitrator in Arbitration Reference No. 212 of
1996.
E. Your Lordships be pleased to grant any other
and further relief / order that are deemed
necessary in the interest of justice may be
passed."
2. The impugned order passed by the Gujarat Public Works
Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated
04.10.2010 in Transferred Arbitration Reference No. 212 of 1996, is
produced thus:
"The learned advocates for the parties submitted
that this case is squarely covered by the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V.A.
Tech. Escher Wyas Floval Ltd. VS. M.P.S.E. Board
& Anr. reported in 2010 Arb. W.L.J. 116 (SC), and
agreed that this case be disposed of in terms of
the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as the present Reference is not maintainable
before this Tribunal.
In view of the above, this Reference is disposed of
in terms of aforesaid judgment."
C/SCA/10504/2014 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2022
3. This Court by an order dated 19.08.2015 passed the
following order:
"The learned advocates appearing for the parties
state that in view of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Rural Road
Development Authority & Anr. Vs. L.G.
Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors, reported in
(2012) 3 SCC 495, the issue is referred to the
Larger Bench of the Apex Court. Hence, the
matter to be listed only after a note for filing is
filed by either side."
4. Heard Mr. Ishan Joshi, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader appearing for the writ-applicants - State and
Mr. H.J. Karathiya, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
5. Mr. H.J. Karathiya, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent fairly placed on record the judgment rendered in the
case of M.P. Rural Road Development Authority v. L.G. Chaudhary
Engineers and Contractors reported in (2018) 10 SCC 833 (in Civil
Appeal No. 974 of 2012 dated 08.03.2018), wherein, in para-14 to
16, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:
"14. In view of above, we are of the view that
the State law will prevail in terms of Section
2(4) of the Central Act. The reference under the
State law was valid and could be decided in
accordance with the State. Accordingly, we set
aside the impugned order and restore the
proceedings before the Tribunal. The appeal is,
C/SCA/10504/2014 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2022
accordingly, allowed in above terms.
C.A. No.2751 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No.
11615/2012, C.A. No.2753 of 2018 @ SLP(C)
No. 11617/2012, C.A. No.2754 of 2018 @
SLP(C) No.11618/2012, C.A. No.2755 of 2018 @
SLP(C) No. 11619/2012, C.A. Nos.2756-2757 of
2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 11633-11634/2012, C.A.
Nos.2758-2759 of 2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 11631-
11632/2012 & C.A. Nos.2760-2761 of 2018 @
SLP(C) No. 11628-11629/2012:
15. Leave granted. In view of order passed in
Civil Appeal No.2615 of 2018 (@
SLP(C)NO.16889 of 2012), the impugned order
is set aside and the application(s) filed by the
respondent(s) under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 are
dismissed.
16. However, since it is stated that proceedings
are pending before the Arbitrator in pursuance
of the impugned order, the same will stand
transferred to the State Tribunal and the State
Tribunal may proceed further taking into
account the proceedings which have already
been taken. Learned counsel for the
respondent(s) pointed out that in view of
Section 16(2), the objection to the jurisdiction
could not be raised after statement of defence
was filed. This contention cannot be accepted in
view of the fact that the SLP was filed prior to
the filing of statement of defence wherein this
objection was raised."
6. In view of the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, the writ-application stands allowed and order passed by
the Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 04.10.2010 in Transferred
Arbitration Reference No. 212 of 1996 stands quashed and set aside
and the said Reference is ordered to be restored to the file of the
C/SCA/10504/2014 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2022
Tribunal, to be decided on merits and in accordance with law. Rule
is made absolute to the above referred extent. Mr. Karathaiya, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the
Reference be expedited, since the Reference is of the year 1998.
The Tribunal shall consider the said request taking into
consideration the backlog / pendency of the References pending
before the Tribunal.
7. With the above directions, the writ-application stands
allowed, in the aforesaid terms.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
Pradhyuman
