Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kamal Nayan Agrawal on 1 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20361
1 AR-29-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2025
ARBITRATION REVISION No. 29 of 2023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
KAMAL NAYAN AGRAWAL
Appearance:
Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Deputy Advocate General for the applicant /
State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Heard on I.A.No.3579/2023, which is an application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
02. There is a delay of 113 days in filing the revision.
03. On due consideration, application is allowed for the reasons stated
therein and delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned.
04. Heard on admission.
05. Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 11/10/2022 (Annex.-A/1)
passed in Reference Case No.332024 by Madhya Pradesh Arbitration
Tribunal, Bhopal (for short hereinafter referred as, 'Tribunal'), this revision
petition under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran
Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short hereinafter referred as, 'Adhiniyam') has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20361
2 AR-29-2023
filed.
0 6 . Facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are that
respondent / Contractor entered into an agreement with the applicants for the
work of construction of "120 Seater ITI Hostel Building at Ujjain including
Electrification Work". The agreement No.27/2012 was executed between the
parties and consequently work order was issued to the respondent Company
on 29/11/2012. The work was to be completed within a period of 12 months
including the rainy season. As per the Works Department Manual appendix
2.10 Clause 8 Special Condition, which is the part of contract / agreement as
per the circular No.4386/3849/19/Yo/2011, dated 19/03/2011 issued by the
Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department, the respondent was required to
prepare a working and structural drawing and get them approved from the
competent authority.
07. The respondent / Contractor could not complete the project as he
did not get the drawings approved from the applicants for the period of more
than eight months, which caused a huge delay in completion of the project.
Looking to the said delay, the applicants rescinded the contract as per
rescinding Clause No.3-C of the contract / agreement. Multiple letters were
issued to the respondent to appear before the competent authority, but
respondent neither appeared before the competent authority nor filed any
reply. Thereafter, the respondent / contractor has filed a claim / reference
before the Tribunal for an amount of Rs.15,80,000/- and the same was refute
by filing written statement on the part of the applicants.
0 8 . Learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings after affording
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20361
3 AR-29-2023
opportunity of adducing documentary as well as oral evidence, by the
impugned order rejected all the claims except the Claim No.33/2014 by
awarding an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent with an interest @
4% per annum, which gave rise to this arbitration revision.
09. Learned counsel for the applicants / State submits that there was
no fault on the part of the applicants. It was the respondent / Contractor, who
has committed error in complying with the terms and conditions of the
agreement, which caused loss to the applicants, but without giving heed to
the aforesaid, claim against the applicants have been passed, which is bad in
law, therefore, pray for allowing the revision petition by setting aside the
impugned award.
10. Heard and considered the submission raised by learned counsel for
the applicants / State and perused the record.
11. Learned Tribunal has rejected all other claims raised by respondent /
Contractor except claim No.3 with regard to loss of profit and in this claim
Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 4% per annum from 26/02/2014 has been awarded.
The aforesaid claim No.3 has been dealt with in para No. 57 to 61 dealing with
the pleadings and evidence adduced in support of the pleading.
12. Relying upon the judgment by Apex Court in Maula Bux vs. Union of
India (1969) 2 SCC 554 and Dwaraka Das vs. State of M.P. (1999) 3 SCC 500 ,
learned Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that had structural drawing and
design been submitted by the respondent and has been approved by the applicants
in time, certainly he would have been in a position to complete the work in
stipulated time and would have earned that much profit which he was legally
expecting. Delay caused by the applicants in approval of the aforesaid structural
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20361
4 AR-29-2023
drawing and design and after that as per Clause 14 of the agreement and Clause
3(C) of the same by Ex.P/13 agreement was cancelled which deprived the
respondent from getting the due profit, therefore, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, learned Claims Tribunal reached to the conclusion that
an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of filing
of Reference Petition i.e. 26/02/2014 should be awarded to the respondent /
Contractor for the loss of the profit and accordingly allowed the claim with
respect to the above.
13. In the considered opinion of this Court, no illegality, irregularity or
impropriety has been found in allowing the aforesaid Claim No.3 for
compensating the respondent. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nalakath
Sainuddin Vs. Koorikadan Sulaiman reported in (2002) 6 SCC 1 , the scope of
revisional Court for interfering with the order under challenge is limited one,
therefore, it is not expected of the Court to interfere unless exceptional
circumstances wherein admissible evidence has not been considered and
inadmissible evidence has taken into consideration for passing the award / order /
judgment. The paragraph 17 of the aforesaid judgment can aptly be reproduced
which runs as under:-
"17........
.........
(ii) Once a revision petition is entertained by the High Court,
whichever by the party invoking the revisional jurisdiction, the High
Court acquires jurisdiction to call for and examine the records of the
authority subordinate to it. The records relating to "any order" and/or
any proceedings, are available to be examined by the High Court for
the purpose of satisfying itself as to the (a) legality, (b) regularity, or
(c) propriety of the impugned order, including any part of the order, or
proceedings. The only limitation on the scope of the High Court's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20361
5 AR-29-2023
jurisdiction is that the order or proceedings sought to be scrutinized
must be of the subordinate authority. Any illegality, irregularity or
impropriety coming to its notice is capable of being corrected by the
High Court by passing such appropriate order or direction as the law
requires and justice demands."
14. Resultantly, this revision is sans merit, fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej / Soumya
