STATE OF M.P. & ANR. versus ANSHUMAN SHUKLA

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 06-08-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 361 
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. 
v. 
ANSHUMAN SHUKLA 
(Civil Appeal No. 3498 of 2008) 
AUGUST 06, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND 
C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 
1983: s.19 - Applicability of s.5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to 
C 
revision filed uls.19 of the Adhiniyam of 1983 - Held: s.19 
does not contain any express rider on the power of the High 
Court to entertain an application for revision after the expiry 
of the prescribed period of three months - On the contrary, 
High Court is conferred with suo moto power, to call for the 
D 
record of an award at any time - It cannot therefore be said 
that the legislative intent was to exclude the applicability of 
s.5 of the Limitation Act to s.19 of the Adhiniyam of 1983 -
Delay in filing revision is condonable - Matter remanded to 
High Court to examine same on merits - Limitation Act, 1963 
E 
-s.5. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: There is no express exclusion of applicability 
of Section 5 to Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh 
F 
Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 nor any 
evidence to suggest that the legislative intent was to bar 
the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 
Section 19 of the Adhiniyam. [Para 39] [375-F] 
Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal Construction 
Company 2004 (II) MPJR SN 55; Nagar Palika Parishad, 
Morena v. Agrawal Construction Company 2004 MLJ 374 -
Disapproved. 
361 
G 
H 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 11 S.C.R.. 
A 
Nasiruudin and Ors. v. Sita Ram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC 
577: 2003 (1) SCR 634; Union of India v. Popular 
Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470: 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 
619 - held inapplicable. 
Mukri Gopa/an v. Chepp.ilat Puthanpuravil Aboobacker 
B (1995) 5 SCC 5: 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 1; Hukumdev Narain 
Yadav v. La/it Narain Mishra (1974) 2 SCC 133: 1974 (3) 
SCR 31 - referred to. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Case Law Reference: 
2004 (II) MPJR SN 55 
2004 MLJ 374 
Disapproved 
Para 2 
Disapproved 
Para 5 
2003 (1) SCR 634 
held inapplicable Para 6 
2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 619 held inapplicable Para 6 
1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 1 
referred to 
1974 (3) SCR 31 
referred to 
Para 27 
Para 27 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3498 of 2008. 
From the Judgment and Order-dated 30.06.2005 passed 
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench in Civil 
Revision No. 1330 of 2003. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 1145 of 2009. 
Arjun Garg, Mishra Saurabh for the appellants. 
Akshat Shrivastava, Manjeet Kirpal for the respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. Civil Appeal No.3498 of 2008 
arises out of order dated 30.6.2005 in C.R.No.1330 of 2003 
passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High 
Court at Jabalpur relying on the judgment and order dated 
H 13.4.2005 passed by the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh 
• 
STATE OF M.P. v. ANSHUMAN SHUKLA 
363 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
High Court in C.R.No.633 of 2003 etc. The connected Civil 
A 
Appeal No.1145 of 2009 arises out of judgment and order 
dated 4.7.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in C.R.No.1 of 2006. 
2. Civil Appeal No.3498 of 2008 was heard by a Division 
Bench of this Court, wherein by way of judgment dated 
12.05.2008, it was opined that the case of Nagar Palika 
Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal Construction Company' was 
B 
not correctly decided and, thus, the matter required 
consideration by a larger bench. It was further opined that the 
record of the case be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief 
C 
Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench. That is 
how this matter has come up for consideration before us. 
3. As both the appeals are identical, for the sake of 
convenience, we would refer to the necessary facts of D 
C.A.No.3498 of 2008 which are stated hereunder: 
The respondent filed a petition under Section 7 of the 
Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1983") raising certain 
claims about the works contract executed between the parties. 
The petition was partly allowed by the Madhya Pradesh 
Arbitration Tribunal vide its award dated 18.6.2003. An amount 
of Rs.6,05,624/- with interest @12% per annum was awarded 
from 24.04.1998 till the date of realisation. 
4. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed a Civil Revision 
No.1330 of 2003 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh 
under Section 19 of the Act of 1983, along with an application 
under Section
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.