Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeal disposed of.

M/S ESSEL INFRA PROJECTS LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE A v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ACTING THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 4250 of 2018
Neutral Citation:[2018] 4 S.C.R. 265

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Adarsh Kumar Goel
  • R. F. Nariman
Judgment Date
2018-04-19
Court Decision / Holding
The Court held that, although timeliness is not mandatory, the object of the MP Act is speedy dispute resolution and directed that one to two years may be a reasonable time for disposal. It ordered setting up additional Benches as needed, with the Chairman of the Tribunal to inform the State Government and for the State to respond forthwith. If timely disposal remains elusive, parties may move the Chief Justice of the High Court for directions. The decision also requires that revision petitions before the High Court be disposed of expeditiously, not beyond two years. The Court referred to Krishnakant Tamarakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018) and indicated that if timeliness cannot be achieved, statutory amendments could be considered to provide remedies in other forums. The appeal is disposed of with these directions.
Final Disposition
Appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • M/S Essel Infra Projects Ltd. through its Authorized Representative A

Respondents

  • State of Madhya Pradesh acting through its Director

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Parag Tripathi
  • • Neeraj Kishan Kaul
  • • Prabhat Kumar
  • • Sridhar Potaraju
  • • Sudhir Mishra
  • • Petal Chandok
  • • Prabhat Kumar
  • • Sindoora VNL
  • • Ankita Sharma
  • • Rishabh
  • • Udai Khanna
  • • Rishabh Kapur
  • • Anusuya Salwan
  • • Vikas Sood
  • • Harsh Parashar
  • • Bhuvan Mishra
  • • A Mishra
  • • Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava
  • • Viven Sibal
  • • Vivekananda Bommineni
  • • Akash Lamba
  • • Aman Pandey

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Purushuindra Kaurav
  • • Mishra Saurabh
  • • B.N. Dubey
  • • Ms. Devika Gulati
  • • Ms. Anuradha Mishra
  • • Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi
  • • K. Krishna Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court appeal concerns timeliness in the functioning of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. The appellant, M/S Essel Infra Projects Ltd., challenges delays in arbitration proceedings under the Act, noting that tribunals often take years—sometimes up to five years or more—to reach a decision. The Court frames the object of the legislation as a speedy dispute resolution mechanism and directs the State to monitor timeliness of proceedings. It suggests that one to two years may be a reasonable time for disposal, though not mandatory, and requires the Chairman of the Tribunal to assess bench strength and report to the State Government. If delays persist, the Court authorizes the parties to approach the Chief Justice of the High Court for appropriate directions. The judgment also emphasizes that timeliness should extend to revision petitions before the High Court, which must be disposed of expeditiously but within two years. In this regard, the Court cites the Krishnakant Tamarakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh decision (2018) and indicates that statutory amendments could be contemplated if timely disposal cannot be achieved. The appeal is disposed of with directions aimed at ensuring prompt disposal and potential legislative remedies.

Provisions of Law Cited

Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Speedy dispute resolution principle
  • Reasonable time for disposal of proceedings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the MP Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam aims to provide speedier dispute resolution, yet tribunal proceedings have spiraled into multi-year delays, undermining the very purpose of the Act. They urge the Court to lay down concrete timeliness guidelines and to direct the Government to ensure adequate infrastructure, including the number of benches, so that matters are decided within a reasonable period. They urge that the Chief Justice of the High Court be empowered to issue directions to expedite cases and that if timely disposal cannot be achieved through internal measures, statutory amendments should be considered to provide remedies through other forums. They emphasize that delay erodes confidence in the arbitration mechanism and affects public and private sector projects. They request periodic review of timelines and urge a proactive, remedial approach to prevent further escalation of delays.

Contentions of Respondents

The State counsel acknowledged that delays occur in some cases and did not dispute the delays. While timeliness is desirable, the remedy requires administrative action and possible legislative amendments. The State suggested strengthening benches, monitoring by the High Court, and enabling executive action via the State Government to address bottlenecks. The parties agreed that the Court should provide directions to promote timely disposal, but the balance between administrative feasibility and judicial oversight was central to the debate.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Krishnakant Tamarakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh2018 (6) SCALE 156Mentioned OnlyReferenced in the judgment as a comparative authority; not directly applied or distinguished in the current ruling.

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 M/S ESSEL INFRA PROJECTS LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE A v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ACTING THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

265 [2018] 4 S.C.R. 265 ## M/S ESSEL INFRA PROJECTS LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE A v. ## STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ACTING THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR B (Civil Appeal No. 4250 of 2018) ## APRIL 19, 2018 ## **[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]** _Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983:_ C _Proceedings under – Time bound disposal of – Held: Since the object of the legislation is to provide speedy dispute resolution mechanism, State is required to monitor timeliness of the proceedings – One or two years may be taken as reasonable time for the purpose – Though this timeliness is not mandatory, but the same must be_ D _kept in mind by all concerned and attention of Chief Justice of High Court must be drawn if such timeliness is not followed – The Chief Justice may take steps as may be possible in the matter – In case it is found that timeliness as contemplated cannot be achieved, statutory amendments be considered so as to provide remedies at any other appropriate forum – Appeal disposed of._ E _Krishnakant Tamarakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh_ **2018 (6) SCALE 156 – referred to.** ## **Case Law Reference** **==> picture [303 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4250 of 2018. From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2017 of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Arbitration Petition No. 27 of 2013. G Parag Tripathi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advs., Prabhat Kumar, Sridhar Potaraju, Sudhir Mishra, Ms. Petal Chandok, Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Sindoora VNL, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Rishabh, Udai Khanna, Rishabh Kapur, Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Vikas Sood, Harsh Parashar, Bhuvan H 265 266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R. - A Mishra, Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, Viven Sibal, Vivekananda Bommineni, Akash Lamba, Aman Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant. Purushuindra Kaurav, Mishra Saurabh, B.N. Dubey, Ms. Devika Gulati, Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, K. Krishna Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent. B The following Order of the Court was passed: ## **O R D E R** 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted only to consider whether any direction is required for timeliness in disposal C of proceedings under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (M.P. Act, 1983). 2. Sh. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that as at present the Tribunal proceedings under the M.P. Act, 1983 take upto five years and sometime even more. Learned counsel D for the State does not dispute that it is so happening in some cases. 3. Having regard to the object of the legislation which is to provide speedy dispute resolution mechanism, the State must monitor timeliness so that arbitration proceedings do not take unduly long time. One to two years may, in our view, be taken as reasonable time for the purpose. E 4. Having regard to the realistic assessment which may be made from time to time, such number of Benches may be set up as may effectuate this object. The Chairman of the Tribunal must also ensure that no unreasonable delay takes place. As and when the Chairman thinks that there is dearth of Benches, the Chairman must communicate the same to the State Government and the State Government must F forthwith take a call thereon. If it is found that in spite of these directions, the speedy disposal of proceedings is not taking place, it will be open to either parties to move the Chief Justice of High Court who may look into the matter and issue such directions as may be considered necessary in this regard. E G 5. We may also mention that decision at the original level is not enough if proceedings are thereafter held up in revision proceedings before the High Court. Such revision petition must be disposed of expeditiously but not beyond two years. H M/S. ESSEL INFRA PROJECTS LTD. THR. ITS AUTH. REP. v. 267 STATE OF M. P. ACTING THR. ITS DIRECTOR 6. Though the above timelines are not mandatory, same must be A kept in mind by all concerned and attention of Chief Justice of the High Court must be drawn if such timelines are not followed so that the Chief Justice may take such steps as may be possible in the matter. In case it is found that timelines as contemplated cannot be achieved, statutory amendments be considered so as to provide remedies at any other B appropriate forum. In this connection reference may be made to the judgment of this Court dated 28.03.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.470 of 2018 titled “Krishnakant Tamrakar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh”. 7. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions. C Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal disposed of. D E F G H