Supreme Court of India
M/S ESSEL INFRA PROJECTS LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ACTING THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR on 19 April 2018
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Procedure
M/S ESSEL INFRA PROJECTS LTD. THROUGH ITSAUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ACTING THROUGH ITSDIRECTOR
(Civil Appeal No. 4250 of 2018)
APRIL 19, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983:
Proceedings under – Time bound disposal of – Held: Sincethe object of the legislation is to provide speedy dispute resolutionmechanism, 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 bekept in mind by all concerned and attention of Chief Justice ofHigh Court must be drawn if such timeliness is not followed – TheChief Justice may take steps as may be possible in the matter – Incase it is found that timeliness as contemplated cannot be achieved,statutory amendments be considered so as to provide remedies atany other appropriate forum – Appeal disposed of.
Krishnakant Tamarakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh2018 (6) SCALE 156 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
2018 (6) SCALE 156referred toPara 1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4250of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2017 of the High Courtof Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Arbitration Petition No.27 of 2013.
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, RishabhKapur, Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Vikas Sood, Harsh Parashar, Bhuvan
265
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
AMishra, Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, Viven Sibal, VivekanandaBommineni, Akash Lamba, Aman Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant.
Purushuindra Kaurav, Mishra Saurabh, B.N. Dubey, Ms. DevikaGulati, Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, K. KrishnaKumar, 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 grantedonly to consider whether any direction is required for timeliness in disposalCof proceedings under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983(M.P. Act, 1983).
2. Sh. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the appellantsubmitted that as at present the Tribunal proceedings under the M.P.Act, 1983 take upto five years and sometime even more. Learned counselfor the State does not dispute that it is so happening in some cases.
D
3. Having regard to the object of the legislation which is to providespeedy dispute resolution mechanism, the State must monitor timelinessso that arbitration proceedings do not take unduly long time. One to twoyears may, in our view, be taken as reasonable time for the purpose.
E4. Having regard to the realistic assessment which may be madefrom time to time, such number of Benches may be set up as mayeffectuate this object.The Chairman of the Tribunal must also ensurethat no unreasonable delay takes place. As and when the Chairmanthinks that there is dearth of Benches, the Chairman must communicatethe same to the State Government and the State Government mustFforthwith 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 toeither parties to move the Chief Justice of High Court who may look intothe matter and issue such directions as may be considered necessary inthis regard.
E
G
5. We may also mention that decision at the original level is notenough if proceedings are thereafter held up in revision proceedingsbefore the High Court. Such revision petition must be disposed ofexpeditiously but not beyond two years.
6. Though the above timelines are not mandatory, same must bekept in mind by all concerned and attention of Chief Justice of the HighCourt must be drawn if such timelines are not followed so that the ChiefJustice may take such steps as may be possible in the matter. In case itis found that timelines as contemplated cannot be achieved, statutoryamendments be considered so as to provide remedies at any otherappropriate forum. In this connection reference may be made to thejudgment of this Court dated 28.03.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.470 of2018 titled “Krishnakant Tamrakar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh”.
7. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal disposed of.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H