Summary and Analysis of Umri Pooph Pratappur (Upp) Tollways Pvt. Ltd. Vs M.p. Road Development Corporation

1. Heading of the Judgment

Exclusive Jurisdiction of Statutory Tribunal Overrides Private Arbitration in State Works Contracts

2. Relevant Laws & Sections

• Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (MP Act 1983)
  Section 2(1)(d): Defines "dispute" as a claim for ascertained/ascertainable money (≥ ₹50,000) arising from works contracts.
  Section 2(1)(i): Defines "works contract" to include concession agreements for road construction.
  Section 7(1): Mandates reference of disputes to the MP Arbitration Tribunal, irrespective of arbitration clauses.
  Section 20: Bars civil courts from entertaining disputes covered by the Tribunal.

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
  Section 2(4): Preserves jurisdiction of special statutory tribunals (like MP Tribunal).

• Constitution of India
  Article 226: Writ jurisdiction against private bodies discharging public functions.

3. Basic Case Details

• Parties:
  Appellant: UPP Tollways Pvt. Ltd. (Concessionaire for road project).
  Respondents: MP Road Development Corp. (State entity) & ICADR.

• Agreement: Concession Agreement (05.01.2012) for developing Umri-Pooph-Pratappur Road (BOT-Toll + Annuity basis).

• Dispute: Appellant claimed ₹280.1566 crores for delays, cost escalations, and breaches by Respondent No. 1.

• Proceedings:
  Appellant initiated arbitration under ICADR (1996 Act).
  Respondent No. 1 challenged this via writ petition before MP High Court.
  High Court: Quashed ICADR arbitration, upheld MP Tribunal’s exclusive jurisdiction.
  Supreme Court: Dismissed appeal, upheld High Court’s decision.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

A. Maintainability of Writ Petition Against Private Party

• Issue: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a private company (appellant)?

• Court’s Reasoning:
  Respondent No. 1 (State entity) discharged public functions (road infrastructure under Article 19(1)(g) & 21 of Constitution).
  Appellant’s role in executing a State Highway project involved a public law element, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction.
  Precedent: Binny Ltd. v. Sadasivan – Writ lies against private bodies performing public duties.

• Conclusion: Writ petition was maintainable.

B. Exclusive Jurisdiction of MP Arbitration Tribunal

• Issue: Whether ICADR arbitration or MP Tribunal has jurisdiction?

• Court’s Reasoning:
  Concession Agreement = "Works Contract":
  Covered under Section 2(1)(i) of MP Act 1983 (includes road projects).
  Statutory Override:
  Section 7(1) mandates disputes go to MP Tribunal, despite arbitration clauses in agreements.
  Section 20 bars civil courts (and private tribunals) from adjudicating.
  Claims Were "Ascertainable":
  Appellant’s claims (₹280.1566 crores) were quantifiable, falling under Section 2(1)(d).
  Post-Viva Highways amendment expanded "dispute" to include unascertained claims.
  Precedents:
  MP Rural Road Dev. Auth. v. L.G. Chaudhary: MP Act 1983 overrides 1996 Act.
  Viva Highways Ltd. v. MP RDC (upheld by SC): Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction.

• Conclusion: ICADR arbitration was void ab initio; only MP Tribunal could adjudicate.

C. Appellant’s Conduct & Legal Barriers

• Doctrine of Election:
  Appellant initially filed Reference Case No. 61/2018 before MP Tribunal (2018).
  Later, it simultaneously invoked ICADR arbitration (2022).
  Parallel proceedings are impermissible.

• Withdrawal Without Liberty:
  Appellant withdrew tribunal reference without seeking leave under Rule 53(2) of MP Tribunal Rules.
  Rule 53(3)(b): Bars fresh proceedings on same claims.

• Limitation:
  Disputes arose in 2013–2015; arbitration invoked in 2022 (beyond 3-year limitation under 1996 Act).

D. Final Directions

1. ICADR Arbitration Proceedings: Quashed as non est (invalid).

2. Revival of Tribunal Reference:
   Appellant may apply to restore Reference Case No. 61/2018 before MP Tribunal.
   Tribunal to decide restoration within 2 weeks and dispose of the case on merits within 4 months.

Key Takeaways

• Statutory Tribunals Prevail: For state works contracts, special legislation (MP Act 1983) overrides private arbitration agreements.

• Public Function Test: Private entities executing state infrastructure projects are subject to writ jurisdiction.

• Doctrine of Election: Parties cannot pursue dual remedies for the same dispute.

• Practical Relief: Despite dismissing the appeal, the Court allowed restoration of tribunal proceedings to avoid denial of justice.

Final Outcome: Appeal dismissed; MP Tribunal affirmed as the sole forum.