2021 INSC 0800
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6768 of 2021
M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 
BOARD & ANR. .. Appellants
Versus
K.P. DWIVEDI .. Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6769 Of 2021
M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 
BOARD & ANR. .. Appellants
Versus
K.P. DWIVEDI .. Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6770 OF 2021
M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 
BOARD & ANR. .. Appellants
Versus
K.P. DWIVEDI .. Respondent

2
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   08.05.2018   passed   by   the   High
Court of Madhya Pradesh in Arbitration Revision Nos.11, 12 &
13   of   2017   by   which   the   High   Court   has   quashed   and   set
aside   the   orders   passed   by   the   Madhya   Pradesh   Arbitration
Tribunal, Bhopal and has directed the said Tribunal to decide
the respective references on merits, Madhya Pradesh Housing
and   Infrastructure   Development   Board   and   another   have
preferred the present appeals.
2. As common question of law and facts arise in these group
of   appeals,   all   these   appeals   are   decided   and   disposed   of
together by this common judgment and order.  
For the sake of convenience Civil Appeal No.6768 of 2021
arising out of Special Leave Petition No.32557 of 2018 arising
out   of   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Madhya   Pradesh   in   Arbitration   Revision   No.13   of

3
2017   is   treated   and   considered   as   the   lead   matter   and   the
facts in the said appeal are narrated which in nutshell are as
under:
2.1 Appellants floated a tender  for construction of houses at
Riviera   Town,   Near   MANIT   Square,   Bhopal.     Contract   was
awarded   to   the   respondent   herein.     An   agreement   dated
15.07.2005   was   executed   between   the   appellants   and   the
respondent.  In the year 2008, the disputes arose between the
parties.     According   to   the   appellants,   the   respondent   was
supposed   to   complete   the   work   within   18   months.     However,
despite   granting   repeated   extensions,   the   contractor   failed   to
complete the work, on account of which, appellants rescinded
the   contract   by   invoking   clause   3   of   the   contract   agreement.
Aggrieved   by   the   order   dated   30.06.2008,   rescinding   the
contract, the respondent ­ contractor by invoking clause 29 of
the   contract   agreement   filed   a   claim   petition   along   with
granting extension of time upto 31.03.2009 before the Deputy
Housing  Commissioner, Bhopal.    The respondent ­ contractor
also   filed   a   writ   petition   before   the   High   Court   seeking

4
direction to permit him to complete the work.  High Court vide
Order dated 20.08.2008 disposed of the said petition on a joint
consensus  of   the   parties  that   the  dispute  shall   be  decided  by
the   arbitrator   i.e.,   Housing   Commissioner,   M.P.   Housing
Board   within   the   stipulated   period.     The   respondent   ­
contractor thereafter filed a modified claim before the Office of
the   Housing   Commissioner   along   with   prayer   for   grant   of
extension   of   time.     Thus,   the   respondent   ­   contractor
participated in the arbitration proceedings before the Housing
Commissioner,   M.P.   Housing   Board.     That   the   learned
Arbitrator passed an award on 07.11.2008 rejecting the claim
of   the   respondent   ­   contractor   and   granting   some   relief   in
favour of the appellants. Instead of challenging the said award
by   way   of   an   application   under   Section   34   of   the   Arbitration
and   Conciliation   Act,   1996   (hereinafter   referred   to   as
‘Arbitration Act, 1996’), the respondent filed a fresh Reference
Petition before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal under
Section   7   of   the   Madhya   Pradesh   Madhyastham   Adhikaran,
Vindhyachal,   Bhopal,   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   1983

5
Act’).   The appellants filed their written statements on various
grounds   along   with   preliminary   objections   including   that   the
dispute has already been decided by the Arbitrator vide award
dated   07.11.2008   which   was   duly   constituted   by   the   High
Court   and   therefore,   the   fresh   claim   petition   for   the   same
claim   before   the   M.P.   Arbitration   Tribunal,   Bhopal   was   not
maintainable.  It was also submitted that the award passed by
the Arbitrator  had already  achieved finality  and therefore, the
dispute   for   the   said   claim   cannot   be   entertained   by   the
Tribunal   subsequently.     Vide   order   dated   27.02.2017   the
learned   M.P.   Arbitration   Tribunal,   Bhopal   dismissed   the   said
claim/reference   as   not   maintainable   since   claim   made   by   the
respondent   had   already   been   decided   by   the   Arbitrator
appointed   by   the   High   Court   and   the   award   passed   by   the
learned Arbitrator had achieved finality and so the dispute for
the   said   claim   could   not   be   entertained   by   the   learned
Tribunal subsequently.
3. Having   realized   that   the   earlier   order   dated   20.08.2008
passed   in   W.P.   No.9131   of   2008   by   which   the   dispute   was

6
referred   for   arbitration   to   the   Housing   Commissioner   would
come   in   his   way,   as   an   afterthought,   the   respondent   ­
contractor   filed   a   review   petition   in   the   month   of   May,   2017
seeking   clarification   of   the   order   dated   20.08.2008   passed   in
W.P.   No.9131   of   2008   to   the   extent   that   by   directing   the
adjudication   of   the   dispute   by   the   Housing   Commissioner,   it
did not take away the jurisdiction of learned Arbitral Tribunal
constituted under  the 1983 Act.   It appears that in  the  mean
time the full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide
judgment   and   order   dated   05.05.2017   held   that   if   an
agreement   falls   within   the   definition   of   ‘works   contract’   then
the   dispute   arising   from   such   an   agreement   shall   be
adjudicated   by   the   Tribunal   under   the   1983   Act.   The   review
application   was   opposed   by   the   appellants.     Vide   order   dated
07.09.2017,   the   High   Court   dismissed   the   review   petition   by
observing   that   the   case   did   not   fall   within   the   review
jurisdiction of the Court under Order 47 Rule 1, CPC.
3.1 That   after   the   dismissal   of   the   review   petition,   the
respondent   ­   contractor   filed   the   present   Arbitration   Revision

7
Petition   before   the   High   Court   under   Section   19   of   the   1983
Act challenging the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated
27.02.2017   dismissing   the   claim/reference   as   not
maintainable.   By the impugned judgment and order the High
Court has allowed the said revision and has quashed and set
aside   the   order   passed   by   the   learned   Tribunal   dated
27.02.2017   and   has   directed   the   learned   Arbitral   Tribunal
constituted   under   the   1983   Act   to  decide  the   reference/claim
on merits and in accordance with law.
4. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   M.P.   Housing
and   Infrastructure   Development   Board   has   preferred   the
present appeal. 
5. Shri   Bharat   Singh,   learned   AAG   has   appeared   for   the
appellants and Shri Kavin Gulati, learned Senior Advocate has
appeared   for   the   respondent   ­   contractor   in   the   respective
appeals.

8
6. Shri   Bharat   Singh,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf
of the appellants has vehemently submitted that the impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   quashing   and
setting aside the order passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal
dated   27.02.2017   by   which   the   learned   Arbitral   Tribunal
dismissed the reference/claim petition filed by the respondent
­   contractor   as  not   maintainable,   in   view   of   the   earlier   award
passed   by   the   learned   Arbitrator   and   directing   the   learned
Arbitral Tribunal to entertain the claim reference and to decide
the same on merits is unsustainable in law as well as on facts.
6.1 It is urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants   that   the   High   Court   while   passing   the   impugned
judgment and order has not at all appreciated and considered
the   fact   that   earlier   the   dispute   between   the   parties   was
referred to the Arbitrator­ Housing Commissioner by the High
Court   and   that   too   in   the   petition   filed   by   the   respondent   ­
contractor   himself.     It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has
not   at   all   appreciated   the   fact   that   as   such   the   learned
Arbitrator appointed pursuant to the order passed by the High

9
Court   had   passed   an   award   which   had   attained   finality
inasmuch   as   the   said   award   had   not   been   challenged   by   the
respondent – contractor by way of appeal under Section 34 of
the Arbitration Act, 1996.
6.2 It is contended that the learned Arbitrator had passed an
award   and   the   only   remedy   available   to   the   respondent   ­
contractor   was   to   challenge   the   same   by   way   of   an   appeal
under   Section   34   of   the   Arbitration   Act,   1996,   which   remedy
the respondent ­ contractor had failed to avail.  It is submitted
that   instead   he   filed   a   fresh   claim   petition   before   the   learned
Arbitral   Tribunal   constituted   under   the   1983   Act   which   as
such and as rightly observed by the Arbitral Tribunal was not
maintainable.  
6.3 It is further submitted that the order passed by the High
Court   referring   the   dispute   between   the   parties   to   the
Arbitrator   ­   Housing   Commissioner   was   a   consent   order   and
the   same   was   as   per   the   relevant   arbitration   clause   in   the
agreement entered into between the parties.

10
6.4 It   is   further   urged   that   even   subsequent   to   the   order
passed by the Arbitral Tribunal dated 27.02.2017, with a mala
fide  intention  as  an   afterthought,  the  respondent  ­  contractor
filed a review application before the High Court challenging the
consent   order   dated   20.08.2008   i.e.,   after   a   period   of   9   years
of  the   order   and  the  said  review  petition   had  also  came to   be
dismissed   by   the   High   Court.     It   is   submitted   that   even
dismissal   of   the   review   petition   had   also   attained   the   finality
and   the   same   was   not   carried   further.     It   is   urged   that
therefore,   it   was   not   open   for   the   respondent   –   contractor   to
file a fresh claim petition for the same claim which was made
before   the   learned   Arbitrator   ­   Housing   Commissioner
constituted pursuant the order passed by the High Court.
6.5 It is submitted that in the case of  Madhya Pradesh Rural
Road   Development   Authority   and   Another   vs.   L.G.
Chaudhary  Engineers  and   Contractors , (2018) 10 SCC  826,
relating   to   the   issue   of   jurisdiction   of   the   M.P.   Tribunal,   this
Hon’ble Court has categorically held that if no objection to the
jurisdiction of the arbitration was taken at the relevant stage,

11
that   award   cannot   be   annulled   only   on   that   ground.     It   is
urged that in the present case no such objection was raised by
the   respondent   ­ contractor   at  the  relevant  stage.    It  is  urged
that   in   fact,   the   entire   proceedings   before   the   Arbitrator   ­
Housing  Commissioner  was  at  the behest  of the  respondent ­
contractor, as it was he who filed the writ petition culminating
in the consent order appointing an arbitrator, and then filed a
claim.
6.6 It is contended that even a fresh reference petition by the
respondent ­ contractor is also not maintainable in view of the
principle   of   Issue   Estoppel.     Reliance   is   placed   on   the
decisions   of   this   Court   in   Hope   Plantations   Ltd.   vs   Taluk
Land  Board,  Peermade  and   Another,   (1999) 5 SCC  590 and
Bhanu Kumar Jain vs Archana Kumar and Another , (2005)
1 SCC 787.
6.7 It is further contended that the claim of the respondent ­
contractor that the judgment passed by the High Court in the
year   2008  was   contrary   to   law   and  cannot   confer  jurisdiction

12
on the arbitrator is misconceived and erroneous for the reason
that the order was passed with consent and even if the order is
wrong, it will continue to bind the parties until and unless it is
set   aside   by   a   competent   court.     Reliance   is   placed   on   the
decisions of this Court in the case of  Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D)
Th. LR. Sadhna Rai (Smt.) vs. Rajinder Singh & Ors.,  (2006)
5   SCC   566   (para   17)   and   Rafique   Bibi   (Dead)   By   Lrs.   vs.
Sayed   Waliuddin   (Dead)   by   LRs   and   others,   (2004)   1   SCC
287 (paras 7 and 8).
7. Making   the   above   submissions   and   relying   upon   the
above decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals and
set   aside   the   impugned   judgment   and   orders   passed   by   the
High Court.
8. Present   appeals   are   vehemently   opposed   by   Shri   Kavin
Gulati,   learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of
respondent – contractor.  It is submitted that the 1983 Act is a
Special Act providing for statutory and compulsory arbitration
under the said Act for disputes pertaining to ‘works contract’.

13
It   is   submitted   that   Section   7   of   the   Act   provides   that   either
party   to   a   ‘works   contract’….   shall   irrespective   of   the   fact
whether   the   agreement   contains   an   arbitration   clause   or   not,
refer   in   writing   the   dispute   to   the   Tribunal.     It   is   contended
that   the   term   ‘dispute’   is   defined   in   Section   2(d)   to   mean   a
claim having a value of Rs.50,000/­ or more.   It is contended
that   therefore   the   claims   above   Rs.50,000/­   are   to   be
compulsorily   brought   before   the   Tribunal   constituted   under
Section 3 of the 1983 Act.
8.1 It is urged that even as per Section 7B of the 1983 Act no
dispute can be referred to the Arbitration Tribunal unless the
dispute is first referred for decision of the final authority under
the   scope   of   the   term   ‘works   contract’.     It   is   only   once   a
decision   is   made   or   if   the   authority   fails   to   make   a   decision
can a claim be preferred before the Tribunal.
8.2 It is submitted that the 1983 Act is a Special Act insofar
as the State of M.P. is concerned, and therefore it will prevail
over   the   provisions   of   the   Arbitration   Act,   1996.     Reliance   is
placed on the decision of this Court in the case of   M.P. Rural

14
Road  Development Authority and Anr.  vs.  L.G. Chaudhary
Engineers   &   Contractors   reported   in   (2012)   3   SCC   495   and
the   subsequent   decision   in   M.P.   Rural   Road   Development
Authority   and   Anr.   vs.   L.G.   Chaudhary   Engineers   &
Contractors  reported in (2018) 10 SCC 826.
8.3 It is submitted that the full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh
High   Court   has   also  taken   the   same   view   in   the   case   of   Viva
Highways   Ltd.   vs.   MP   Rural   Road   Development
Corporation   Ltd.   in   AA   No.   14   of   2017   and   connected
matters.     It   is   submitted   that   the   said   judgment   has   been
approved by this Hon’ble Court in the case of  M/s Essel Infra
Projects Ltd. vs. The State of MP   in Civil Appeal No.4250 of
2018.
8.4 It   is   submitted   that   in   the   present   case,   arbitration
clause contained in Clause 29 of the Agreement contemplates
a two­stage adjudication.   At the first stage a reference has to
be   made   to   the   Deputy   Housing   Commissioner   for   his
decision.   If the amount is above Rs.25,000/­ then the papers

15
have   to   be   placed   before   the   Housing   Commissioner.     This
constitutes the first stage. The second stage then contemplates
that, if the parties are aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy
Housing Commissioner, then the dispute will be referred to the
Additional   Housing   Commissioner   subject   to   the   jurisdiction
and limitations in accordance with the provisions of the 1983
Act.     It   is   submitted   that   even   the   Additional   Commissioner
can   only   deal   with   the   disputes   which   are   only   below
Rs.50,000/­   as   disputes   above   that   amount   are   statutorily
referable to the arbitration by the learned Tribunal as is clear
from Sections 3, 7, 2(d) and 7B of the 1983 Act.
8.5 It   is   submitted   that   in   the   present   case,   the   contract   in
question   was   terminated   on   30.06.2008   and   a   claim   was
preferred   before   the   Deputy   Housing   Commissioner   on
11.07.2008.     Since   the   contract   was   terminated   and   the
appellants  herein   were   inviting   fresh   tenders  and   also   seizing
the   machinery   and   material   of   the   respondent   ­   contractor,   a
Writ Petition was filed bearing no.9131 of 2008 before the High
Court   to   expedite   the   conclusion   of   the   first   stage   of

16
adjudication,   under   the   threat   of   imminent   monetary   losses.
It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court by its order dated
20.08.2008 after recording the submissions of the respondent
– contractor directed the Housing Commissioner to decide the
dispute   within   the   period   stipulated   in   the   agreement.     It   is
submitted   that   as   there   was   delay   by   the   Deputy   Housing
Commissioner   in   taking   the   decision,   a   direction   was   to   the
Housing   Commissioner  to   decide   the   issue,  as   the   amount   in
dispute was more than Rs.25,000/­ and it is only the Housing
Commissioner   who   could   take   a   decision   as   per   Clause   29   of
the   Contract.     Liberty   was   also   granted   by   the   High   Court   to
both parties to seek a redressal of their grievances against the
final outcome by approaching the court of law.  It is submitted
that thus it can be seen that the direction of the Hon’ble High
Court   was   consistent   with   Clause   29   as   this   represented   a
decision which would be the first stage of resolution of dispute
as   per   Clause   29.     It   is   submitted   that   the   Housing
Commissioner   by   an   order   dated   07.11.2008   by   an   ex­parte
order   dismissed   the   claims   of   the   respondent   –   contractor.

17
Immediately   thereafter,   in   line   with   Clause   29   of   the
Agreement and Sections 7 and 7B of the 1983 Act, a reference
was preferred by the respondent – contractor herein under the
1983   Act.     It   is   contended   that   the   decision   of   the   Housing
Commissioner   dated   07.11.2008   cannot   be   said   to   be   a
decision under the Arbitration Act, 1996.  It is therefore urged
that   the   respondent   was   not   required   to   file   the   objections
under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 as contended on
behalf of the appellants.
It is submitted that a reference filed by the respondent –
contractor   after   the   order   of   the   Housing   Commissioner   was
maintainable   only   after   the   order   of   the   Housing
Commissioner   dated   07.11.2008   and   not   before   that.     It   is
therefore   submitted   that   the   respondent   –   contractor   has
acted   strictly   in   accordance   with   Sections   7   and   7B   of   the
1983 Act read with Clause 29 of the Contract.  
8.6 Alternatively,   it   is   submitted   assuming   that   even   if   the
order   of   the   Housing   Commissioner   dated   07.11.2008   is
considered   to   be   under   the   Arbitration   Act,   1996,   the   same

18
would be non­est as any arbitration relating to ‘works contract’
in   M.P.   could   only   be   under   the   1983   Act.     The   fact   of   the
respondent – contractor having consented to appear before the
Housing   Commissioner   would   be   immaterial   as   the
proceedings   under   the   Arbitration   Act,   1996   were   without
jurisdiction   and   void   ab­initio.     Reliance   is   placed   on   the
decision   of   this   Court   in   Hindustan   Zinc   Ltd.   vs.   Ajmer
Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. , (2019) 17 SCC 82.
Relying  upon  the  above decisions  it is prayed to  dismiss
the present appeals.
9. Heard   learned   counsel   for   the   respective   parties   at
length.
10. The   short   question   which   is   posed   before   this   Court   for
consideration is, whether, in view of the award declared by the
Housing   Commissioner,   M.P.   Housing   Board,   who   was
appointed   as   an   arbitrator   pursuant   to   the   order   passed   by
the   High  Court  in  Writ  Petition  No.9131  of  2008,  was  it  open
for   the   respondent   –   contractor   thereafter   to   file   a   reference

19
before   M.P.   Arbitration   Tribunal   with   respect   to   the   very
claim/claims   which   were   the   subject   matter   of   arbitration
before the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner. 
It   is   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   –   contractor
that as the contract was a ‘works contract’ and therefore, the
dispute   between   the   appellants   and   the   respondent   –
contractor   could   only   be   decided   by   the   learned   Arbitral
Tribunal   constituted   under   the   1983   Act,   therefore,   the
Housing   Commissioner   had   no   authority   to   act   as   an
arbitrator and decide the dispute between the parties and the
award   passed   by   the   Arbitrator   ­   Housing   Commissioner   can
be said to be non­est and wholly without jurisdiction.
11. While   considering   the   aforesaid   issue   and   the
submissions   made   by   the   learned   counsel   of   the   respective
parties,   first   of   all   the   reliefs   which   were   prayed   by   the
respondent – contractor in Writ Petition No.9131 of 2008 and
the   respective   claims   made   by   the   respondent   –   contractor
before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 9131 of 2008, before

20
the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner and before the learned
Arbitral Tribunal are required to be referred to and considered.
11.1 In   the   Writ   Petition   No.9131   of   2008   the   respondent   –
contractor prayed for the following reliefs: 
(a) “ To   direct   the   Respondents   to   complete   the
arbitration proceedings.
(b) To   direct   the   Respondents   not   to   cancel   the
agreement   and   be   permitted   the   Petitioner   to
complete   the   work   and   quash   the   order   of
tender   dated   20.07.2008   (Annexure   P/22)   and
dated 27.07.2008 Annexure P/23).
(c) Set aside the order dated 30.06.2007 (Annexure
P/19) passed by the Executive Engineer.
(d) To direct the Respondents to pay the amount of
outstanding   dues   of   Rs.   17835925.00   with
interest and compensation of ten crores.
(e) To   direct   the   Respondents   not   to   award   the
contract to any other person and also direct the
Respondents   to   decide   the   arbitration,   after
affording   the   proper   opportunity   to   the
Petitioner.
(f) To call the relevant records
(g) Any   other   order/   orders,   directions   which   this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly
be also granted.”

21
11.2 That thereafter the High Court passed the following order
dated 20.08.2008:
“ Shri Sameer Seth, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri   T.S.   Ruprah,   Sr.   Counsel   with   Shri   Harmeet
Singh,   Counsel   for   Respondents/   M.P.   Housing
Board. 
Learned   counsel   for   the   Petitioner   fairly   stated
that   the   arbitration   clause   in   the   agreement   has
been   invoked   by   submitting   reference   vide
Annexure   P20.  He   drew  attention  of  this   Court  to
the   prayer   for   interim   relief   regarding   restraining
from   inviting   tender   for   the   remaining   work.   He
stated   at   Bar   that   no   order   has   been   passed   on
the prayer for interim relief. 
This   being   so,   this   petition   is   disposed   of   with   a
joint   consensus   of   the   learned   Counsel   for   the
parties in the following manner:­ 
(i) The arbitrator i.e. Housing Commissioner, M.P.
Housing   Board   would   decide   the   dispute   in
arbitration   within   the   period   stipulated   in   the
agreement. 
(ii)   A   decision   on   the   interim   prayer   made   on   the
interim   page­25   of   the   reference   (Annexure   P20)
would   be   taken   within   a   period   of   one   week   from
today. 
(iii) Till then no work order be issued pursuant to
the fresh tender. 
(iv)   Petitioner   would   also   be   at   liberty   to   move   a
separate application within three days with regard
to   the   relief   granted   vide   interim   order   dated
07.08.2008.   A   decision   on   such   application,   if
filed,   would   be   taken   in   an   expeditious   manner

22
preferably   within   a   week.   Interim   order   dated
07.08.2008 shall continue to operate till a decision
on such interim application is taken. 
Petition, accordingly stands disposed of with
an observation that the aggrieved party, in case of
grievance   against   the   final   outcome,   shall   have   a
right to approach the Court of law.”
11.3 Thereafter it was the respondent – contractor who himself
submitted   the   claim   before   the   Arbitrator   –   Housing
Commissioner. The Arbitrator ­ Housing Commissioner issued
notice   upon   the   respondent   –   contractor.     However,   after
submitting   the   claims,   the   respondent   –   contractor   did   not
appear before the learned Arbitrator  – Housing  Commissioner
and consequently on appreciation of evidence and considering
the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, the learned
Arbitrator   –   Housing   Commissioner   passed   an   award   dated
07.11.2008.     Subsequently,   respondent   –   contractor   filed   a
reference   before   the   learned   Arbitral   Tribunal   constituted
under   the   provisions   of   1983   Act   making   the   very   claims
which   were   made   before   the   High   Court   in   Writ   Petition
No.9131 of 2008 as well as made before the learned Arbitrator
– Housing Commissioner.  

23
At   this   stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   in   the
Reference  Petition   there  was  no  reference  to   the  order  passed
by   the   High   Court   in   Writ   Petition   No.9131   of   2008   referring
the   disputes   between   the   parties   to   the   Arbitrator   –   Housing
Commissioner and thereafter submitting the claims before the
Housing   Commissioner   and   the   award   passed   by   the   learned
Arbitrator   –   Housing   Commissioner   dated   07.11.2008.   A
detailed   written   statement   was   filed.   The   relevant   extracts   of
the written statement are as under:
1. “ The   claim   was   also   filed   by   the   petitioner   to
the   Housing   Commissioner   of   Respondents
which   was   duly   decided   complying   with   the
directions of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P.
2. The   Hon'ble   High   Court   by   Order   dated
20.08.2008   in   Writ   Petition   No.   9131/2008
directed   the   Commissioner   of   M.P.   Housing
Board to decide the application of interim stay
filed   by   the   Contractor   before   re­tendering   of
the works. The Directions were also issued for
final hearing under clause 29 of the agreement
with in the provision of agreement. The Hon'ble
Commissioner   had   fully   complied   with   the
directions   of   the   Hon'ble   High   Court   and   the
Contractor   was   duly   notice   but   even   than   the
Contractor   did   not   take   any   pains   even   to   see
the order of Commissioner dt. 07.11.08, which
was   passed   by   him   in   compliance   with   the
directions of the Hon'ble High Court.

24
3. The petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief
as   he   has   not   come   before   this   Hon'ble   M.P.
Arbitration  Tribunal with clean hands and the
facts   of   paramount   importance   have   been
deliberately suppressed by the petitioner in the
said petition.
4. That   as   per   the   directions   order   by   Hon.   High
Court,   the   matter   has   already   been   decided
and   award   has   already   been   passed   and   duly
acknowledged   by   the   petitioner   hence   the
petition filed before the Hon'ble MP Arbitration
Tribunal   deserved   to   be   dismissed,   no   relief
can be claimed.
5. That   the   petitioner   has   duly   accepted   the
award as it evident from his action that he has
accepted   the   payment   so   ordered   by   the
Arbitrator   the   Housing   Commissioner   in   the
said   award.   In   compliance   with   the   award
dated 07.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner
the   petitioner   has   already   received   the
payment   as   per   award   as   is   evident   from   the
letter   dated   02.11.2009   the   award   so   received
is   Rs.   3,57,000/­   in   total   through   cheque
dated 02.01.2009.
6. That   from   the   action   and   reactions   of
petitioner   it   is   evident   that   the   petitioner   has
accepted   the   award   without   challenging   it
before the appropriate court prior to  accepting
the payments awarded by the Arbitrator in the
light of orders of Hon'ble High Court has been
accepted and agreed by the Petitioner. Keeping
in   view   of   this   legal   proceedings,   this   petition
of   the   Petitioner   does   not   even   deserves   for
admission   as   the   final   adjudication   was
complete   by   the   Order   of   the   Commissioner,
M.P.   Housing   Board,   issued   under   the
directions of the Hon'ble High Court.”

25
11.4 That   the   appellants   filed   I.A.   No.1   raising   preliminary
issues   with   respect   to   maintainability   of   the   reference   before
the   learned   Tribunal.     The   learned   Arbitral   Tribunal   framed
the following preliminary issues:
“ (i)   Whether   the   Petitioner   has   complied   with
provisions   of   clause   29   before   approaching   this
Tribunal? 
(ii)   Whether   the   Petitioner   has   no   locus   standi   to
file   the   petition   when   the   appointed   arbitrator   by
the   Hon'ble   High   Court   with   consent   passed   the
award dated 07.11.2008 and acted upon?”
11.5 That   by   a   detailed   order   and   considering   the   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   dated   20.08.2008   referring   the
disputes   between   the   parties   to   the   Arbitrator   –   Housing
Commissioner; the claims made before the High Court as well
as   before   the   learned   Tribunal   dismissed   the   reference   by
holding that the Reference Petition is not maintainable.  While
dismissing  the Reference Petition as not maintainable in para
18, the learned Arbitral Tribunal observed as under:
“ On   perusal   of   the   order   dated   20.08.2008   (Ex.
D/18)   passed  by  the  Hon'ble  High  Court it  seems
that the said order was passed with the consent of
both   the   parties.   The   order   indicates   that   the
Housing   Commissioner   was   appointed   as

26
arbitrator   to   decide   the   dispute   between   the
parties.   The   contention   of   the   learned   Counsel   of
the Petitioner that the Housing Commissioner was
directed to decide the Petitioner's quantified claim
by invoking clause 29 as competent authority does
not   appear   to   be   acceptable   because   the   Housing
Commissioner has been designated in the order as
the   Arbitrator.   Moreover,   the   Housing
Commissioner   was   not   directed   to   decide   the
dispute   as   competent   authority.   Apart   from   this,
under   clause   29   there   are   only   two   competent
authorities,   first,   is   Dy.   Housing   Commissioner
and if he fails to decide the dispute within 60 days
second   is   Additional   Housing   Commissioner.
There   is   no   provision   to   decide   the   quantified
claim   by   the   3 rd
  competent   authority.   Besides   it,
Hon'ble   High   Court   has   no   power   to   create/
appoint   a   third   competent   authority   by   invoking
the power clause 29 of the agreement, but Hon'ble
High Court has the power to appoint an arbitrator
under   Section   11   (6)   of   the   Act,   1996.   Therefore,
keeping  in  view the aforesaid  facts,  it can only  be
inferred that the Hon'ble High Court exercising the
power   vested   in   it   under   Article   227   of   the
Constitution   of   India   appointed   the   Housing
Commissioner as Arbitrator to decide the dispute.
The     submission   of   the   learned   Counsel   for   the
Petitioner   that   appointment   of   Arbitrator   is
without   jurisdiction   and   the   said   order   dated
20.08.2008 does not have over riding effect on the
provisions   of   the   Act,   1983   and   the   said   order
being   per   incurium   has   no   force   appears   to   be
sound but this Tribunal has no power to say that
the order dated 20.08.2008 passed by the Hon'ble
High   Court   in   writ   jurisdiction   is   without
jurisdiction   and   has   effect   of   nullity   because   this
Tribunal is subordinate of the Hon'ble High Court
which has supervisory  power over  it under Article
227   of   Constitution   of   India.  Moreover,   the   award
passed by this Tribunal is challengeable before the
Hon'ble   High   Court   under   Section   19   of   the   Act,

27
1983   by   the   Civil   Revision.   If   the   Petitioner   was
not   satisfied   with   the   order   dated   20.08.2008
passed   by   the   Hon'ble   High   Court,   the   propriety
and   the   legality   of   the   said   order   ought   to   have
been   challenged   by   the   Petitioner   before   the
competent   forum   but   it   was   not   done   so.
Moreover,   the   said   order   was   passed   with   the
consent   of   both   the   parties.   In   the   said
circumstances,   this   Tribunal   is   bound   to   accept
the   order   passed   by   the   Hon'ble   High   Court.   On
the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the  case,  it can be safely  inferred that Housing
Commissioner was appointed by the Hon'ble High
Court to decide the dispute between the parties as
the   Arbitrator   who   decided   the   same   vide   award
dated 07.11.2008. The legality and the propriety of
the   said   award   could   have   been   challenged   by
filing appeal under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 but
the   Petitioner   failed   to   do   so,   consequently,   the
said   award   had   achieved   finality   before   filing   the
reference   petition.   Once   the   dispute   between   the
parties had already been decided by the competent
Arbitrator,   the   same   dispute   cannot   be   reagitated
before this Tribunal  by  the Petitioner.  the Hon'ble
High Court in the case of Ditya (supra) elaborately
discussing in para 12 has held that even a wrong
decisions are taken which is contrary to the law is
binding upon the parties unless and until it is set
aside   in   the   appeal   or   by   the   other   remedy
provided under the clause.”
12. After the aforesaid order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the
learned   Tribunal   holding   that   the   reference   petition   was   not
maintainable   in   view   of   the   earlier   order   passed   by   the   High
Court   dated   20.08.2008   passed   in   Writ   Petition   No.9131   of
2008   directing   the   adjudication   of   the   dispute   by   the

28
Arbitrator   –   Housing   Commissioner,   the   respondent   –
contractor filed a review petition before the High Court, having
realized   that   the   order   dated   20.08.2008   passed   in   the   Writ
Petition No.9131 of 2008 will come in his way in pursuing the
reference petition before the learned Arbitral Tribunal, seeking
clarification of the order passed in W.P. No.9131 of 2008 to the
extent that by directing the adjudication of the dispute by the
Housing Commissioner, it does not take away the jurisdiction
of   the   learned   Arbitral   Tribunal   constituted   under   the   Act
1983.  The said review petition was opposed by the appellants.
Vide   order   dated   07.09.2017   the   High   Court   dismissed   the
said   review   petition.     Thereafter   the   respondent   –   contractor
filed   the   revision   application   before   the   High   Court   under
Section 19 of the 1983 Act being Arbitration Revision No.13 of
2017   challenging   the   order   dated   27.02.2017   passed   by   the
learned   Arbitral   Tribunal   dismissing   the   reference   petition   as
not  maintainable.   By  the  impugned  judgment  and order,  the
High   Court,   relying   upon   the   subsequent   decision   of   the   full
Bench has set aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal

29
on 27.02.2017 and has directed the learned Arbitral Tribunal
to decide the reference on merit.  The impugned judgment and
order   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   A.R.   No.13   of   2017   is   the
subject matter of present appeal.
13. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such the
earlier   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   Writ   Petition
No.9131   of   2008,   by   which   the   dispute   between   the   parties
was  referred to  the  Arbitrator   – Housing   Commissioner  was  a
consent   order.       It   was   the   respondent   –   contractor   who   filed
the   Writ   Petition   No.9131   of   2008   submitting   that   he   has
invoked   the   arbitration   clause.     Thereafter   the   respondent   –
contractor submitted the claim before the Arbitrator – Housing
Commissioner   who   passed   an   award.     The   respondent   –
contractor   did   not   challenge   the   award   passed   by   the
Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner and therefore, as such the
award passed by the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner dated
07.11.2008 has attained finality.  

30
14. The   case   of   the   respondent   –   contractor   that   the   earlier
order   passed   by   the   High   Court   dated   20.08.2008   passed   in
Writ   Petition   No.9131   of   2008,   referring   the   dispute   between
the   parties   for   adjudication   to   the   Arbitrator   –   Housing
Commissioner   and   thereafter   the   award   declared   by   the
Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner dated 07.11.2008 are non­
est   and   void   and   therefore,   it   was   open   for   the   contractor   to
file   a   fresh   reference   petition   before   the   learned   Arbitral
Tribunal under Section 7 of the 1983 Act, cannot be accepted
for the following reasons:
(i)     It was the respondent – contractor who approached the
High   Court   by   filing   Writ   Petition   No.9131   of   2008
submitting that he has invoked the arbitration clause;
(ii)       The   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   dated
20.08.2008   passed   in   Writ   Petition   No.9131   of   2008
referring   the   dispute   between   the   parties   to   the
Arbitrator   –   Housing   Commissioner   was   a   consent
order;

31
(iii) Thereafter   the   respondent   –   contractor   submitted   the
claims   before   the   learned   Arbitrator   –   Housing
Commissioner;
(iv) The   learned   Arbitrator   –   Housing   Commissioner
passed an award which has attained the finality;
(v)         That   the   review   petition   filed   by   the   contractor   for
clarification   of   the   order   dated   20.08.2008   passed   in
Writ   Petition   No.9131   of   2008   to   clarify   the   aforesaid
order  to  the extent  that  it  did not  take away  the right
of   the   contractor   to   file   the   reference   petition   before
the learned Arbitral Tribunal under the 1983 Act came
to be rejected and the same also attained finality;
(vi) The   claims   submitted   before   the   Arbitrator   –   Housing
Commissioner;   before   the   High   Court   in   Writ   Petition
No.9131   of   2008;   and   the   claim   submitted   in
Reference Petition before the learned Arbitral Tribunal
under the 1983 Act are the same without any change;

32
(vii) In the subsequent reference petition before the learned
Arbitral   Tribunal   under   the   1983   Act   there   was   no
reference to the earlier order passed by the High Court
in  Writ  Petition  No.9131 of  2008 referring  the  dispute
between   the   parties   for   adjudication   to   Arbitrator   –
Housing   Commissioner   and   the   award   passed   by   the
Arbitrator   –   Housing   Commissioner.     Thus,   there   was
a   suppression   on   the   part   of   the   respondent   –
contractor;
(viii) The order passed by the High Court dated 20.08.2008
passed   in   Writ   Petition   No.9131   of   2008   referring   the
dispute   between   the   parties   for   adjudication   to   the
Arbitrator   –   Housing   Commissioner   as   such   was   a
consent   order   and   thereafter   the   contractor
participated   in   the   arbitration   proceedings   before   the
Arbitrator   –  Housing  Commissioner   by  submitting   the
claim is binding  between the parties on the ground of
‘issue estoppel’. 

33
15. In  the case of   Bhanu  Kumar  Jain   (supra)   it  is  observed
and   held   that   a   cause   of   action   estoppel   arises   where   in   two
different   proceedings   identical   issues   are   raised,   in   which
event, the latter proceedings between the same parties shall be
dealt   with   similarly   as   was   done   in   the   previous   proceedings.
In   such   an   event,   the   bar   is   absolute   in   relation   to   all   points
decided save and except allegation of fraud and collusion.
16. Apart   from   the   fact   that   the   award   declared   by   the
Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner was not challenged by the
respondent – contractor, even, so long as the said award is not
challenged   before   the   higher   forum   the   same   is   binding
between the parties.   Even the award or a nullity order has to
be challenged before the appropriate forum/higher  forum.   In
the present case it cannot be said that there was a total lack of
jurisdiction   of   the   Arbitrator   –   Housing   Commissioner   in
passing   the   award   as   it   was   the   High   Court   who   passed   the
order   with   consent   referring   the   dispute   between   the   parties
for the adjudication to the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner.
Therefore, unless and until it was challenged by the contractor

34
before   the   higher   forum,   the   respondent   –   contractor   cannot
be   permitted   to   ignore   and/or   to   avoid   the   award   passed   by
the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner dated 07.11.2008.
17. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that what was
filed before the High Court was the revision application filed by
the  contractor  under  Section  19  of the  1983  Act rejecting   the
reference petition as not maintainable.  Section 19 of the 1983
Act reads as under:
“ 19.   High   Court's   power   of   revision.   –   The   High
Court may   suo motu   at any time or an application
for revision made to  it within three  months of the
award by an aggrieved party, call for the record of
any case in which an award has been made under
this   Act   by   issuing   a   requisition   to   the   Tribunal
and upon receipt of such requisition, the Tribunal
shall   send   or   cause   to   be   sent   to   that   Court   the
concerned award and record thereof;
Provided   that   any   application   for   revision   may   be
admitted   after   the   prescribed   period   of   three
months,   if   the   applicant   satisfied   the   High   Court
that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the
revision with such period.
Explanation:   ­   The   fact   that   the   applicant   was
misled   by   any   order,   practice   or   judgment   or   the
High   Court   in   ascertaining   or   computing   the
prescribed   period   may   be   sufficient   cause   within
the meaning of this sub­section.

35
(2)   If   it   appears   to   the   High   Court   that   the
Tribunal­
(a)  has   exercised   a   jurisdiction   not   vested   in   it
by law; or
(b)  has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested;
or
(c)  has   acted   in   exercise   of   its   jurisdiction
illegally, or with material irregularity; or
(d)  has   misconducted   itself   or   the   proceedings;
or
(e)  has   made   an   award   which   is   invalid   or   has
been   improperly   procured   by   any   party   to
the proceedings,
the   High   Court   may   make   such   order   in   the   case
as it thinks fit.
(3)   The   High   Court   shall   in   deciding   any   revision
under   this   section   exercise   the   same   powers   and
follow  the  same procedure as  far  as may  be, as  it
does   in   deciding   a   revision   under   Section   115   of
the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (No. 5 of 1908).
(4) The High Court shall cause a copy of its order
in revision to be certified to the Tribunal.
Explanation.   ­ For the purposes of this section, an
award shall include an 'interim' award.”
Therefore,   as   per   Section   19   of   the   1983   Act,   Revision
Application   to   the   High   Court   shall   be   maintainable   only
against   the   award   passed   by   the   learned   Arbitral   Tribunal.
Therefore,  prima facie  it appears that as such the order passed
by the learned Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the reference petition

36
was not maintainable as by order dated 27.02.2017, no award
was   passed   by   the   Tribunal.     However,   as   no   such   objection
was raised before the High Court and no submission has been
made by the parties, we   rest the   matter there. 
18. Even   otherwise   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   while
passing   the   impugned   judgment   and   order,   the   High   Court
has   not   set   aside   the   award   passed   by   the   Arbitrator   –
Housing   Commissioner   dated   07.11.2008.     Therefore,
technically   speaking   the   award   passed   by   the   Arbitrator   –
Housing   Commissioner   dated   07.11.2008   stands   even   today.
It is binding between the parties.  So long as the award passed
by   the   Arbitrator   –   Housing   Commissioner   dated   07.11.2008
s tands, there cannot be any subsequent fresh proceeding with
respect   to   the   same   claims   which   were   considered   and
adjudicated   by   the   Arbitrator   –   Housing   Commissioner   while
passing   the   award   dated   07.11.2008.     S o   long   as   the   said
award stands it is binding between the parties.
19. Even   otherwise   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   no
objection was raised by the respondent – contractor before the

37
Arbitrator   –   Housing   Commissioner   on   the   jurisdiction   of   the
Housing   Commissioner   to   act   as   an   Arbitrator.     On   the
contrary   as   observed   hereinabove   the   order   passed   by   the
High   Court   referring   the   dispute   between   the   parties   for
adjudication  to   the  Arbitrator  –  Housing  Commissioner  was  a
consent   order   and   the   respondent   ­   contractor   conceded   to
and   accepted   the   said   order   and   submitted   his   claim   before
the   Arbitrator   –   Housing   Commissioner.     The   Arbitrator   –
Housing   Commissioner   also   passed   an   award   on   the   said
claim.     Therefore,   as   no   objections   were   raised   by   the
respondent   –   contractor   at   the   appropriate   stage,   the   award
cannot be annulled subsequently.   At the cost of repetition, it
is   observed   that   at   no   point   of   time   the   respondent   –
contractor had challenged the award passed by the Arbitrator
–   Housing   Commissioner   and   as   observed   and   held
hereinabove even no court has set aside the award declared by
the Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner dated   07.11.2008   and
the same has attained finality.  Therefore, the same is binding
between   the   parties.   Hence,   the   subsequent   fresh   reference

38
petition   before   the   learned   Arbitral   Tribunal   under   the   1983
Act   for   the   very   same   claims   which   were   raised   before   the
Arbitrator – Housing Commissioner would not be maintainable
at all.  We agree with the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal.
20. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present   appeals   are   allowed.     The   impugned   judgment   and
order   dated   08.05.2018   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   A.R.
No.11,   12   &   13/2017   quashing   and   setting   aside   the   order
passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the
1983   Act   dated   27.02.2017   is   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside
and   the   order   passed   by   the   Arbitral   Tribunal   dated
27.02.2017  stands restored.  
All   these   appeals   are   allowed   accordingly.   In   the   facts
and   circumstances   of   the   case,   there   shall   be   no   order   as   to
costs. 
………………………… ..J.
     (M. R. SHAH)
………………………… ...J.
     (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi;
December 03, 2021.