Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order impugned is based upon the observation of the Apex Court in case of V.A. Tech. Escher Wyas Flowval Ltd. Vs. M.P.S.E.Board and Anr. reported in 2010 Arb. W.L.J.116 for non-suiting the proceedings pending before the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act. Learned advocate has also invited this court's attention to the difference between the phraseology employed in the M.P. Act, which was subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court in case of V.A.Tech. Escher Wyas Floval Ltd. Vs. M.P.S.E. Board & Anr. (Supra) and contended that looking to the provisions of Section 21 thereof, mention thereby, Gujarat Act, would unequivocally persuaded any court to hold that exclusive jurisdiction in such a matter is lying with the Tribunal only. Learned advocate for the petitioner also invited this court's attention to subsequent judgment of Apex Court in case of Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and another Vs. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and contractors reported in (2012) 3 SCC 495 and submitted that the Apex Court has viewed that even in respect of M.P.Act, the jurisdiction was held to be lying with the Tribunal constituted under the M.P. Act only irrespective of operation of Arbitration Act.
In view of this, matters deserve consideration. Hence Rule returnable on 23.07.2012. In the meantime and till the returnable date, there shall be an ad-interim relief qua appointment of Arbitrator under Arbitration Act. Notice as to interim relief returnable on 15.06.2012.
Registry is directed to keep copy of this order in each matter.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav