LexSTATE OF M.P. AND ANR. versus ANSHUMAN SHUKLA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 $.C.R. 349 -.\ STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. A v. ANSHUMAN SHUKLA (Civil Appeal No.3498 of 2008) ., . MAY 12, 2008 B [S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] ;.. Limitation Act, 1963 - s. 5 - Applicability of, to. Revision application filed before High Court in terms of s.19 of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam (Act), 1983 - c Division Bench of High Court in *Nagarpalika Parishad case held that the provisions of s. 5 of 1963 was not available- SLP thereagainst was dismissed by this Court- In **Mukri Gopalan case, this Court held that provisions of s.5 would automati- cally get attracted to rent proceedings - Held: Prima facie D *Nagarpalika Parishad case do not lay down correct law - Matter referred to larger Bench - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.115 - Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 - s.19. The question as to whether s.5 of Limitation Act, 1963 E is applicable in the matter of entertaining a revision appli- cation before High Court filed in terms of s.19 of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 came _,. up for consideration before the Division Bench of High ~ Court in *Nagarpa/ika Parishad case wherein it was held F that the provisions ofs.5 of 1963 being not available, the delay in filing revision application was not condonable. Reference was thereafter made to Full Bench in the light of decision of this Court in **Mukri Gopalan case.· In the meantime the decision in *Nagarpalika Parishad G . -+ case came up for consideration before this Court. The de- cision of Division Bench was affirmed by this Court and SLP was dismissed. In the meanwhile the matter was re- ferred again for consideration by a larger Bench which 349 H 350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 8 S.C.R. A included the question as to whether the decision of this Court in regard to the dismissal of SLP constituted a bind- ing precedent. The Constitution Bench found that the decision of this Court in *Nagarpalika Parishad case con- stituted a binding precedent and it was bound by it and B thus held that s.5 of Limitation Act has no application to revision application filed before the High Court under s.19 of the Act. In the instant case, the appellant contended that the Arbitration Tribunal being a Court, in view of the provi- c sions contained in sub-section (2) of s.29 of the Limita- tion Act, the High Court committed a serious error in opin- ing that it did not have any power to condone the delay. Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court D HELD:1.Prima facie *Nagarpalika Parishad case was not correct!y decided. [Para 32] [372-B] 2. The Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (Act) came into force with effect from 1st E March, 1985. It was enacted to provide for the establish- ment of a Tribunal to arbitrate on disputes to which the State Government or a Public Undertaking (wholly or sub- stantially owned or controlled by the State Government), is a party, and for matters incidental thereto or connected F therewith. [Para 3] [354-E] *Nagarpalika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal Construction Co. (2004) (II) MPJR 374; **Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker (1995) 5 SCC 5 - referred to. 3. The Act is a special Act. It provided for compul- G sory arbitration. It provides for a reference. The Tribunal has the power of rejecting the reference at the threshold. It provides for a special limitation. It fixes a time limit for passing an award. The High Court exercises a limited power. The revisional power conferred upon the High H Court is akin to s.115 CPC. It has the power to decide as ., ~ .. . STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. v. ANSHUMAN 351 SHUKLA k to whether the Tribunal has misconducted itself or the A proceedings or has made an award which is invalid in law or has been improperly procured by any party to the proceedings. [Paras 12, 13] [358-C-F] 4. The proviso appended to s.19 was added by M.P. B Act No.19 of 2005. Prior thereto the High Court, even at )>- the instance of a party, despite expiry of the period of limi- tation could have exercised its suo motu jurisdiction. [Para 14] [358-F,G] 5.1. It is a trite law that provisions of the Limitation c Act, 1963 shall apply to a Court. It has no application in regard to a Tribunal or persona designata. There exists a distinction between a Court and the Tribunal. The very fact that the authorities under the Act are empowered to examine witnesses af
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.