Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeals disposed of

MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LIMITED

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 4011 of 2018; Civil Appeal No. 4015 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Adarsh Kumar Goel
  • R. F. Nariman
Judgment Date
2018-04-18
Court Decision / Holding
The impugned order is set aside in view of Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another having been overruled; the matter is remanded to the MP Arbitration Tribunal to decide on merits in accordance with law. The appeals are disposed of. The parties are to appear before the Tribunal on 9 July 2018 for further proceedings, and a copy of this order must be served on the respondents.
Final Disposition
Appeals disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority

Respondents

  • Backbone Enterprises Limited

Case Synopsis & Summary

This civil appeal concerns the jurisdiction of an Arbitration Tribunal under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, arising from a dispute between the Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority (the appellant) and Backbone Enterprises Limited (the respondent) with other parties. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had decided the matter in W.P. No. 7105 of 2010, relying on Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another (2011) 13 SCC 261 to determine the scope of the Arbitration Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, notes that the Va Tech decision had since been overruled and that the High Court’s reliance on it was misplaced. It also observes that the Garg decision (C.R. No. 353 of 2004) – which was based on Va Tech – could not be treated as an unassailable authority in light of the Va Tech overrule. Consequently, the impugned order setting aside the High Court decision is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal to decide the dispute on merits and in accordance with law. The Court directs the parties to appear before the Tribunal on a specified date, and a copy of this order is to be served on the respondents. The appeals are disposed of.

Provisions of Law Cited

Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Not stated in the document.

Contentions of Respondents

Not stated in the document.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another(2011) 13 SCC 261OverruledThe judgment notes that Va Tech (2011) 13 SCC 261 has been overruled.
Mahesh Chandra Garg v. State of M.P. and Ors.C.R. No. 353 of 2004Mentioned OnlyReferenced as the basis for the High Court judgment, but Va Tech has since been overruled; not treated as binding after this decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LIMITED and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 4 S.C.R. 268 [2018] 4 S.C.R. A # MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. v. ## BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LIMITED AND ANR. B (Civil Appeal No. 4011 of 2018) APRIL 18, 2018 ## **[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]** _Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983:_ ## C ## D _Arbitration proceedings – Jurisdiction of Arbitration Tribunal – Held: *_ Va Tech _case on which the impugned order had relied on, had since been overruled, the impugned order is set aside – Matter is remanded to Arbitration Tribunal to decide the case on merit._ * _Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another_ **(2011) 13 SCC 261 – Stood overruled.** ## **Case Law Reference** ## **(2011) 13 SCC 261 Stood overruled Para 2** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4011 of E 2018. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2010 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in W. P. No. 7105 of 2010. ## WITH F Civil Appeal No. 4015 of 2018. Saurabh Mishra, AAG., Jugal Kishore Gilda, Purushaindra Kumar, Advs. Gen., Naman Nagrath, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Parag Triathi, Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Advs., Harsh Parashar, Jubin Prasad, Aman Pandey, Jasdeep S. Dhillon, Prabhat K. Chaurasia, Ms. Renuka Sahu, Jay Savla, G Amar Varun, Shantanu Krishna, Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Dhurav Mishra, Divyanshu Kumar Srivastav, Akash Lamba, Viren Sibal, Vivekananda B., Vikas Sood, Apporv Kurup, Ms. Isha Mital, Dr. Harsh Pathak, Ms. Shweta Mahajan, Mohit Chaubey, Siddharth Shukla, Neeraj Shekhar, Arjun Garg, Mishra Saurabh, Sridhar Potaraju, Sudhir Mishra, Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Petal Chandok, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Rishabh, H 268 269 MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LIMITED M. R. Shamshad, Aditya Samaddar, B. S. Banthia, Ms. Swarupama A Chaturvedi, Saurabh S. Sinha, Aditya Dev Triguna, Sunil Singh Parihar, M/S. AP & J Chambers, Prafulla Kumar Behera, Manish K. Bhardwaj, S. S. Nehra, Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Varun Mohan, Swastik Singh, Manish Yadav, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, B.N. Dubey, Ms. Devika Gulati, Hitendra Nath Rath, Mayank Kshirsagar, Pavesh B Joshi, Chavu Ambwani (For M/S. AP & J Chambers), B. K. Satija, Sumit Attri, K. Krishna Kumar, Hitendra Nath Rath, Nilava Bandyopadhayay, Rahul Pandey, Advs. or the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was passed: ## **O R D E R** C 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. In view of judgment of this Court in Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another, (2011) 13 SCC 261 having been overruled and as the High Court has relied on Judgment in C.R. NO.353 of 2004, Mahesh Chandra Garg v. State of M.P. and Ors. decided on 23.2.2010 which was based on Va Tech (supra), the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal so that the said Tribunal can deal with the matter on merits in accordance with law. 3. The appeals are disposed of. D E 4. The parties may appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on 9[th] July, 2018. 5. The appellant may serve a copy of this order on the respondents. F Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals disposed of. G H