M/S Essel Infra Projects Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4250 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s).24172 of 2017)

M/S ESSEL INFRA PROJECTS LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ACTING THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave

granted only to consider whether any direction is required

for timeliness in disposal of proceedings under the M.P.

Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (M.P. Act, 1983).

2. Sh. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the

appellant submitted that as at present the Tribunal

proceedings under the M.P. Act, 1983 take upto five years

and sometime even more. Learned counsel for the State does

not dispute that it is so happening in some cases.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SWETA DHYANI

3. Having regard to the object of the legislation which Date: 2018.04.20 15:59:19 IST Reason: is to provide speedy dispute resolution mechanism, the

State must monitor timeliness so that arbitration 2

proceedings do not take unduly long time. One to two years

may, in our view, be taken as reasonable time for the

purpose.

4. Having regard to the realistic assessment which may be

made from time to time, such number of Benches may be set

up as may effectuate this object. The Chairman of the

Tribunal must also ensure that no unreasonable delay takes

place. As and when the Chairman thinks that there is dearth

of Benches, the Chairman must communicate the same to the

State Government and the State Government must forthwith

take a call thereon. If it is found that in spite of these

directions, the speedy disposal of proceedings is not

taking place, it will be open to either parties to move the

Chief Justice of High Court who may look into the matter

and issue such directions as may be considered necessary in

this regard.

5. We may also mention that decision at the original

level is not enough if proceedings are thereafter held up

in revision proceedings before the High Court. Such

revision petition must be disposed of expeditiously but not

beyond two years.

6. Though the above timelines are not mandatory, same

must be kept in mind by all concerned and attention of

Chief Justice of the High Court must be drawn if such 3

timelines are not followed so that the Chief Justice may

take such steps as may be possible in the matter. In case

it is found that timelines as contemplated cannot be

achieved, statutory amendments be considered so as to

provide remedies at any other appropriate forum. In this

connection reference may be made to the judgment of this

Court dated 28.03.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.470 of 2018

titled “Krishnakant Tamrakar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh”.

7. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.

..........................J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]

..........................J. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]

NEW DELHI 19th April, 2018