Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 103 (MP)

S. K. Jain v. State of M. P.

2018-01-24

HEMANT GUPTA, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2018
ORDER 1. The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal (for short “the Tribunal”) constituted under Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short “the Act”) on an application (I.A. No.1 dated 29.3.2016) filed by the petitioner under Order VI rule 17 of CPC read with section 17-A of the Act in Reference Case No.147/2013 (M/s. S.K. Jain v. State of M.P.). The petitioner has sought two amendments in the application for claim of the amount from the respondents on account of alleged breach of contract i.e. introduction of para 6A and substitution of para 6-G. The Tribunal has allowed the incorporation of para 6-A but declined substitution of para 6-G. 2. The para 6-G as in the original claim petition and the proposed para 6-G for substitution as claimed by the petitioner read as under:- “Original Para 6-G in the Claim Petition New/Proposed Para 6-G for Substitution G. Interest @ 18% per  annum on the above amount from 21.10.2010 till realization G. Claim for Interest - Rs. 1645336.00 - That petitioner had paid the interest @ 18.75 P.A. compounding monthly to the Banks and 22% to 24% compounded monthly to the private institutions which is liable to be paid by Respondent who had terminated the  contract not only contrary to term of contract but also illegally detained the claimed amount thus they are liable to pay interest, thus Petitioner is entitled to receive interest @ 18% per annum on the claim amount from date of deduction/ termination of contract till the date of filling of reference Petition amounting to Rs. 1645336.00.” 3. We find that the order of the Tribunal declining substitution of para 6-G cannot be said to be suffering from any material illegality or irregularity. 4. The petitioner wishes to include the amount of interest paid to the Banks said to be compounded monthly and also the interest paid to the private institutions compounded monthly. All such claims were available and known to the petitioner when the petitioner filed a reference. Once the petitioner has not claimed such amount in original reference petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to add new plea or a specific amount. 5. All such claims were available and known to the petitioner when the petitioner filed a reference. Once the petitioner has not claimed such amount in original reference petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to add new plea or a specific amount. 5. The petitioner has sought the amendment by filing an application under Order VI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereas the Code of Civil Procedure is per se not applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal as only such provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as relate to production of document or summoning of the witnesses etc. have been made applicable in terms of section 12 of the Act. 6. In view of the said fact, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed. S.M. Guru for petitioner; B.D. Singh, Government Advocate for respondent/State.