Summary
The Supreme Court clarified that “ascertained money” in the M.P. statutory arbitration definition includes amounts capable of ascertainment during proceedings from the parties’ claims and counterclaims, not only amounts fixed beforehand. It also directed the State not to appoint as a Tribunal member its employee from the department concerned in the dispute. The appeal and connected matters were disposed of with those clarifications.
Issues
- Whether “ascertained money” excluded amounts requiring determination in the proceedings.
- What restriction applied to appointment of departmental employees as Tribunal members.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(d), Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983The quoted definition covered claims of ascertained money of Rs.50,000 or more arising from execution or non-execution of works contracts. Ascertainment could occur during proceedings on the claims and counterclaims. (¶¶ 2, 3)
- Section 4(3)(iii), Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983After quoting the specified professional qualifications and relaxation proviso, the Court directed that an employee of the department concerned in the dispute not be appointed as a Tribunal member. (¶¶ 4, 5)
Held
- The expression “ascertained money” included both amounts already determined and amounts that could be determined during the statutory proceedings on the basis of claims and counterclaims. The clarification did not eliminate the other requirements in the definition of dispute. (¶¶ 2, 3)
- The State was not to appoint as a Tribunal member its employee of the department to which the dispute related. The direction was framed concerning that departmental connection rather than as an exclusion of every former government officer within the quoted qualifications. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- The connected delayed special leave petitions were disposed of in terms of the same order, with pending applications disposed of. No underlying contract claim was quantified or finally adjudicated here. (¶¶ 6, Connected SLP orders)
Result
Appeal disposed of with the stated interpretive and appointment clarifications; delay condoned in connected special leave petitions, which and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.