Gujarat High Court
Ulka Builders Private Limited vs Executive Engineer on 13 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/303/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 303 of 2023
================================================================
ULKA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 13/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Revision Appliction has been filed challenging the
order dated 21.04.2014, passed by 3 rd Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Gandhinagar below Exhibit-47, in Special Civil Suit No.117 of
2000, whereby the application filed below Exhibit-47 under the
provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has
been rejected.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their original status as that in the suit.
3. Brief facts arising in the present Civil Revision Application
are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of
Rs.25,55,846.61/-, against the defendant and the dispute between the
plaintiff and defendant was that the defendant was awarded contract
for construction of IIT Hospital Building by Agreement No.B-2/1 of
1987/88 and as the dispute arises between plaintiff and defendant,
defendant had filed Arbitration Reference No.26/1997 against the
plaintiff under Section 8 of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts
Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 and the Hon'ble Gujarat
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/303/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal passed an
award on 17.05.1999, for an amount of Rs.1,57,003/- alongwith
running interest. The plaintiff's case in the said suit was that the
plaintiff had filed the said suit on the ground that as the defendant
had not completed the assigned work, within the stipulated time and
time and again the plaintiff had informed the defendant to complete
the work within stipulated time and due to the said delay, plaintiff
filed the suit for an amont of Rs.25,55,846.61/- for damages. The
defendant appeared in the said proceedings and filed an application
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the
ground that the defendant had not completed the assigned work
within the stipulated time, and therefore, the main contention of the
defendant in the said application was that the suit dispute falls under
the definition of Work Contract Definition. Section-2(1)(k) of the
Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act,
1992 and as per section-8 of Gujarat Public Works Contracts
Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, the dispute between the
parties shall irrespective of whether such work contract contain
arbitration cause or not have to prefer within one year when the
dispute has arisen and the said application having been rejected, the
petitioner is filed the present Civil Revision Application.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has mainly argued that
dispute between the plaintiff and defendant was that the defendant
was awarded contract for construction of IIT Hospital Building by
Agreement No.B-2/1 of 1987/88 and as the dispute arises between
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/303/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
plaintiff and defendant and defendant had filed Arbitration
Reference No.26/1997 against the plaintiff under Section 8 of the
Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act,
1992 and the Hon'ble Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes
Arbitration Tribunal passed an award on 17.05.1999 and in view of
section 21 of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes
Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 and Section 8 of the Gujarat Public
Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, the suit
could not have filed in the Civil Court in view of the povision of
section 13 of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes
Arbitration Tribnal Act, 1992 and therefore, the trial Court could not
have rejected the application. Learned advocate for the petitioner
relied on the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat and Another
v. Engineers, Contractors and Consultant reported in (2006) 1
GLH 438 and has been argued that in view of the fact that the
povisions of section 2(e) are very clear and the fact that in the earlier
round of litigation, the plaintiff had neither filed counter claim nor
had filed separate suit, the plaintiff could not have filed the present
Civil Suit before the Civil Court in view of Section 8 of he Gujarat
Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992
read with section 13 of the said Act.
5. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and having
considered the provisions of section 2(1)(k) which defines wok
contract, reads as under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/303/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
"2(1)(k) "Works contract" means a contract made by
the State Government of the ublic undertaking with any
other person for the execution of any of its orks
relating to construction, repairs or maintenance of any
building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir,
tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert, factory or work
shop of such other work of the State Govenment or, as
the case may be, of the public undertaking, as the State
Govenment may, by notification in the Official Gazette
specify, and includes-
(i) a contract made, for the supply of goods relating to
the execution of any of such works.
(ii) a contract made by the Central Stores Purchase
Organisation of the State Governmen for purchase of
sale of goods.
6. It is also required to take into consideration section 13 of the
Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act,
1992, which provides as under:-
"13.(1) Save as otherwise provided by Section 12, no
Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to deal with or
decide any question which the Tribunal is empowered
to deal with and decide by or under this Actt and no
inunction shall be granted by any Civil Court in respect
of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any
power by or under this Act.
(2) No awarrd or interim award or order made or
proceedings taken under this Act by the Tribunal shall
be called in question in any Civil Court."
7. Section 8 of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes
Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 reads as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/303/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
"8(1) Where any dispute arises beween the parties to the
works contract, either prty shall, irrespective of whether
such works contract contains an arbitratin clause or not,
refer, within one yer from the date when the dispute has
arisen, such dispute in writing to the Tributnal for
arbitration in such form and accompanied by such
documents or other evidence and by such fees, as may be
prescribed.
(2) On receipt of a referene under sub-section(1), the
Tribunal may, if satisfied after such inquiry as it may
deem fit to make, that the requirements under this Act in
relation to the reference are compiled with, admit such
reference and where the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it
may reject the reference summarily.
(3) Where the Tribunal admits the reference under sub-
section (2), it shall, after recording evidence if
necessary, and after perusal of the material on record
and on affording an opportunity to the parties to submit
their arguments, make an award or an interim award
giving its reasons therefore.
(4) The Tribunal shall use all reasonable despatch in
entering on and proceeding with the reference admitted
by it and making the award, and an endeavour shall be
made to make an award within four months from the
date on which the Tribunal had admitted the reference.
(5) The award including the interim award made by
the Tribunal shall, subject to an order, if any, made
under section 11 or 12 be final and binding on the
parties to the dispute.
(6) An award including an interim award as confirmed
or varied by an order, if any, made unde section 11 or
12 shall be deemed to be a decree witthin the meaning of
section 2 of the Code of Cviil Procedure, 1908 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/303/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
principal Court of original jurisdiction within the local
limits whereof the award of the interim award has been
made and shall be executed accordingly."
8. Therefore, if there is any dispute arising out of works contract
the same would have to be decided by the Tribunal only and under
section 13 of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes
Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, no Civil Court shall have
jurisdiction to deal with or decide any question which the tribunal is
empowered to deal with and decide or under this Act, and therefore,
the fact remains that in view of section 2(1)(k) read with section 8
only the tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute
between the plaintiff and defendant and section 13 of the said Act,
prohibit the Civil Court to deal with the said issue which is required
to be decided by the Tribunal. In view of the same, this Court is of
the opinion that the suit appears to be barred by law and the trial
Court could not have rejected the application filed by the defendant
under the povision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure from the bare reading of the plaint, the plaint is barred by
law.
9. In view of the same, the present Civil Revision Application is
allowed and the plaint is rejected. Rule is made absolute.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
Manoj Kumar Rai
