Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeal disposed of; matter remanded to the High...

State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. M/S. KETI CONSTRUCTION

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 4016 of 2018
Neutral Citation:[2018] 3 S.C.R. 663

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Adarsh Kumar Goel
  • R. F. Nariman
Judgment Date
2018-04-18
Court Decision / Holding
Delay condoned. Leave granted. The impugned order set aside. The matter remanded to the High Court to decide the revision petition in accordance with law; Civil Revision No. 509 of 2005 restored to its original number. The appeal disposed of. Parties to appear before the High Court on 9 July 2018 for further proceedings.
Final Disposition
Appeal disposed of; matter remanded to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law; Civil Revision No. 509 of 2005 restored to its original number.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • M/S. KETI CONSTRUCTION

Respondents

  • State of Madhya Pradesh
  • Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Not explicitly stated in document

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Not explicitly stated in document

Case Synopsis & Summary

The present civil appeal concerns a revision petition under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, arising from a High Court dismissal of a revision. The Supreme Court condones the delay, grants leave, and addresses the improper reliance of the High Court on Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another (2011) 13 SCC 261. The Court notes that Va Tech has been overruled by Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Anr. v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors (2012) 3 SCC 495, which is the controlling authority for reconsidering revisions. The Court remands the matter to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law, effectively setting aside the impugned order. It also restores Civil Revision No. 509 of 2005 to its original number and directs attendance of the parties before the High Court on 9 July 2018 for further proceedings. The outcome advances in line with the Chaudhary Engineers decision, underscoring the principle that revision petitions must be decided in conformity with law, and that earlier reliance on Va Tech must be treated as overruled."

Provisions of Law Cited

Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Applicants contend that the revision petition should be remanded to the Madhya Pradesh High Court for decision in accordance with law, taking guidance from the Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority v. Chaudhary Engineers decision (2012) 3 SCC 495, which overruled the Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. decision and requires revisional proceedings to be decided according to the correct legal framework. The remand should ensure that the revision petition is disposed of in light of the Chaudhary Engineers framework and applicable statutory provisions under the Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents acknowledge that Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. has been overruled by Chaudhary Engineers and support remand to the High Court to decide the revision petition in accordance with law, consistent with the Chaudhary Engineers decision and the statutory scheme under the Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Anr. v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors(2012) 3 SCC 495PositiveCited as the controlling authority guiding remand and decision in accordance with law; it overruled Va Tech and supports the present remand direction.
Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another(2011) 13 SCC 261OverruledStood overruled by the Chaudhary Engineers decision, and cited in the judgment to highlight the change in controlling authority.

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 State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. M/S. KETI CONSTRUCTION and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

663 [2018] 3 S.C.R. 663 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. A v. M/S. KETI CONSTRUCTION (Civil Appeal No. 4016 of 2018) APRIL 18, 2018 B ## **[ADARSH KUAMR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]** _Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983:_ _Revision petition – Dismissed by High Court – Propriety of – Held: Since the *_ Va Tech _case (on which the High Court had relied_ C _on) has been overruled, order of High Court is set aside – Matter remanded to High Court._ _Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Anr. v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors_ **(2012) 2 SCC 495 : [2012] 2 SCR 162 – relied on.** D * _Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another_ **[2011] 13 SCC 261** _**–**_ **Stood overruled.** ## **Case Law Reference** **[2012] 2 SCR 162 relied on Para 3** E **(2011) 13 SCC 261 stood overruled Para 3** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4016 of 2018. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2010 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Civil Revision No. 509 of 2005. Saurabh Mishra, AAG., Jugal Kishore Gilda, Purushaindra Kumar, Advs. General, 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, 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 F G H 663 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R. - A Kumar, Ms. Petal Chandok, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Rishabh, M.R. Shamshad, Aditya Samaddar, B. S. Banthia, Ms. Swarupama 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, Arjun Garg, Manish Yadav, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, - B B.N. Dubey, Ms. Devika Gulati, Hitendra Nath Rath, Mayank Kshirsagar, Pavesh Joshi, Chavu Ambwani (For M/S. AP & J Chambers), Jay Savla, B. K. Satija, Sumit Attri, K. Krishna Kumar, Hitendra Nath Rath, Nilava Bandyopadhayay, Rahul Pandey, Advs. for the appearing parties. C The following Order of the Court was delivered: ## **O R D E R** 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. - D 3. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the parties that in view of judgment of this Court in Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Anr. v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors, (2012) 3 SCC 495 which has overruled the judgment of this Court in Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another, (2011) 13 SCC 261, the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter remanded to - E the High Court which may decide the dispute between the parties in the revision petition filed by the respondent in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Civil Revision NO.509 of 2005 is restored to its original number. 4. The appeal is disposed of. - F 5. The parties may appear before the High Court for further - proceedings on 9[th] July, 2018. Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal disposed of. G H