PLJ20 , ,MANU/MP/0279/2002Dipak Misra#11MP510Judgment/OrderMANU#MPHT#MPLJDipak Misra,MADHYA PRADESH2012-9-2417165,20521,20527 -->

MANU/MP/0279/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 6172/2001

Decided On: 22.03.2002

Appellants: Saluja Constructions
Vs.
Respondent: State of M.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dipak Misra

ORDER

Dipak Misra, J.

In this writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has called in question the defensibility of the order dated 21-8-2001, Annexure P-1, passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal (in short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has issued directions to the petitioner to pay the respondents-State a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- along with interest and has also issued certain further ancillary directions.

The facts as have been adumbrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner instituted a Reference Case No. 104/89 before the Tribunal under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby the Tribunal vide order dated 7-9-1995 passed an award in favour of the petitioner for grant of Rs. 11,79,166/-which included the claim of overhead charges of Rs. 6 lakhs and loss on profit of Rs. 50,000/-. Against the said award the petitioner preferred a Civil Revision No. 2136/95 before this Court. In the civil revision this Court vide order dated 7-9-1999 remanded the matter to the Tribunal with certain guidelines. In the meantime, the petitioner in execution of the award had recovered the whole amount with interest. Because of this situation the respondents filed an application under Section 17-A of the Act for refund of the amount. The said application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the High Court had not overturned the order of the Tribunal in entirety and in any case, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of this nature. The Tribunal on consideration of the provision enshrined under Section 17-A of the Act and taking note of certain decisions came to hold that it has the power of restitution as envisaged under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the CPC') and further expressed the view that the petitioner cannot be allowed to retain any amount which was received by him under the award which has been set aside by the High Court. In that backdrop the Tribunal issued directions in Paragraph No. 11, which are reproduced below:--

"(a) Rs. 6,50,000/- along with interest which has been realised by the petitioner from the respondents (the petitioner has realised interest on the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the reference petition i.e., 27-11-1989 till the date of realisation). The petitioner has realised this amount from the respondent-State as per award dated 7-9-1995.

(b) Petitioner is further directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the total amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- and the amount of interest which has been realised by the petitioner as shown in aforesaid para (a) from the date of actual realisation to the date of actual refund under this order to the respondents.

(c) The petitioner to refund the aforesaid amount within two months from today, otherwise, respondent-State of M.P. may file execution proceedings before the proper forum."

After the said order was passed the petitioner filed an interlocutory application for recall of the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the totality of circumstances and discussing the law arrived at the conclusion that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to quash the order dated 21-8-2001.

Assailing the aforesaid order, it is submitted by Mr. V.R. Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has no power under Section 144 of the CPC for directing restitution and the inherent ........