STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR. versus AMBER BUILDERS

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 08-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
779
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 779
779
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH
CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR.
v.
AMBER BUILDERS
(Civil Appeal No. 8307 of 2019)
  JANUARY 8, 2020
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration
Tribunal Act, 1992 – Issue as to whether the Gujarat Public Works
Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal constituted u/s. 3 of the said
Act has jurisdiction to make interim orders in terms of s.17 of the
1996 Act – Respondent-contractor was awarded contract for
strengthening a section of National Highway under work order dtd.
31.07.07, which contained an arbitration clause – According to
the contractor, he completed the work on 30.04.08 and final bill
was paid – Road was damaged and the State called upon the
contractor to repair the damaged portion and according to the
contractor, this repair was completed – Case of the contractor is
that in terms of the contract, the contractor was only liable to remove
defects for period of 3 years which period ended on 30.04.11 –
State issued letter dtd. 11.11.14 calling upon the contractor to pay
Rs.1,09,00,092/- on the premise that the contractor had not carried
out the road repair work in accordance with the contract –
Challenged – Writ petition allowed by the High Court – Held:
Appropriate remedy for the contractor was to approach the arbitral
tribunal constituted under the 1992 Act, since that would have
jurisdiction to decide whether the notice issued by the Government
was legal notice and whether the Government was, in fact, entitled
to recover any amount from the contractor – It would also be within
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide whether the contractor
made out prima facie case for grant of interim relief – Insofar as the
powers vested in the Arbitral Tribunal in terms of s.17 of the 1996
Act are concerned, such powers can be exercised by the Tribunal
constituted under the 1992 Act because there is no inconsistency in
these two Acts as far as the grant of interim relief is concerned –
Merits of the case purposely not gone into – Judgments of the High
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
780
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
Court set aside – Liberty given to the contractor to approach the
Gujarat Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal – If
the Tribunal is approached within 2 months from today, tribunal
not to dismiss the claim on the issue of limitation and to decide the
same on merits – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.2-43
and ss.9, 17 – Arbitration Act, 1940.
Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal
Act, 1992 – ss.2(a), 3, 8(3), 9, 12, 13, 21 – Scheme of the Act –
Discussed.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.9, 17 – Held: s.9
empowers the Court to grant interim measures – However, s.9(3)
clearly provides that once an arbitral tribunal is constituted, the
Court shall not entertain an application u/s.9(1) unless the Court
comes to the conclusion that such circumstances exist which would
make the remedy u/s.17, which provides for interim measures to be
granted by the arbitral tribunal, not efficacious.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Applicability of Part
I of the Act to arbitrations carried out under any other enactment –
Held:  Part I of the Act i.e. from s.2 to s.43 deals with Arbitration
and s.2(2) clearly states that the said Part would apply to all
Arbitrations which take place in India – s.2(4) makes it clear that
other than ss.40(1), 41 and 43, Part I of the Act shall apply to all
arbitrations even if they are carried out under any other enactment
as if the arbitrations were pursuant to an arbitration agreement
except insofar as the provisions of Part I are inconsistent with the
other enactment or any rules made thereunder.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 empowers the Court to grant interim measures.
However, Section 9(3) clearly provides that once an arbitral
tribunal is constituted, the Court shall not entertain an application
under Section 9(1) unless the Court comes to the conclusion that
such circumstances exist which would make the remedy under
Section 17 not efficacious. Section 17 of the A&C Act provides
for interim measures to be granted by the arbitral tribunal. Part I
of the A&C Act i.e. from Section 2 to Section 43 deals with
Arbitration and Section 2(2) clearly states that the said Part would
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
781
apply to all Arbitrations which take place in India. Section 2(4)

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.