Summary
On an appeal confined to timeliness under the Madhya Pradesh statutory arbitration scheme, the Supreme Court directed monitoring, adequate benches and prompt disposal. It identified one to two years as reasonable for tribunal proceedings and two years for High Court revisions, but expressly said the timelines were not mandatory. Persistent delay could be brought to the Chief Justice’s attention, and statutory alternatives considered if the contemplated periods proved unattainable.
Issues
- What measures should address delay under the M.P. statutory arbitration scheme.
- Whether the indicated disposal periods were mandatory.
- How delay in tribunal and revision proceedings should be addressed.
Held
- Leave was confined to timeliness of proceedings under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. The order did not decide the underlying contractual dispute or reopen other arbitral-jurisdiction questions. (¶ 1)
- The State was to monitor tribunal proceedings in light of the legislation’s speedy-resolution purpose. One to two years could be regarded as reasonable; the number of benches should reflect realistic assessments of workload. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- The Tribunal Chairman was to prevent unreasonable delay, communicate shortages of benches, and obtain a prompt State response. If speedy disposal still failed, either party could approach the High Court Chief Justice for appropriate directions. (¶ 4)
- High Court revisions also required expedition, with a two-year period indicated. All the stated timelines were expressly non-mandatory; departures should be drawn to the Chief Justice’s attention for possible remedial steps. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- If the contemplated periods could not be achieved, statutory amendments providing remedies in another appropriate forum were to be considered. This was a direction to consider reform, not an immediate transfer of existing jurisdiction. (¶ 6)
Result
Appeal disposed of with directions concerning monitoring, benches and expeditious disposal; indicated timelines expressly non-mandatory.