Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.versusBACKBONE ENTERPRISES LIMITED AND ANR.

Citation
2018 INSC 360
Decided
18 April 2018
Disposal
Disposed off

Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and remanded the dispute to the Arbitration Tribunal, holding that the overruling of Va Tech eliminates the basis for the High Court’s decision on jurisdiction.

Summary

The Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority filed a civil appeal against Backbone Enterprises Limited challenging the High Court's order that relied on the Va Tech judgment to decide the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal. The Supreme Court observed that the Va Tech decision (Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another, 2011) has been overruled, rendering the High Court's reliance on it untenable. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal to determine the dispute on its merits in accordance with the law. The Court also noted that the High Court had applied the Mahesh Chandra Garg decision, which was based on the now-overruled Va Tech case. The appeals were disposed of, and the parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings.

Issues considered

  • What is the effect of the overruling of Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board on the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal in the present case?
  • Whether the High Court's reliance on Va Tech and Mahesh Chandra Garg decisions is valid after Va Tech has been overruled.

Legislation cited

Subjects

ArbitrationJurisdictionOverruling precedentSupreme Court of IndiaMadhya Pradesh Rural Road Development AuthorityBackbone Enterprises LimitedCivil appeal

Judgment

268                       [2018]REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT    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
            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 &
D             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
     MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT                                      269
     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:
                              ORDER                                             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               D
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.                                          E
      4. The parties may appear before the Tribunal for further
proceedings on 9th July, 2018.
       5. The appellant may serve a copy of this order on the respondents.
                                                                                F
Kalpana K. Tripathy                                      Appeals disposed of.




                                                                                G




                                                                                H


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Arbitration"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.