Arbitration in Government Contracts: Supreme Court Upholds Award Against Contractor

The case of M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board & Anr. vs. K.P. Dwivedi is a significant ruling in the domain of arbitration concerning government contracts. The Supreme Court of India examined whether a contractor could initiate fresh arbitration proceedings after having already submitted claims before an arbitrator and receiving an award. The Court upheld the previous arbitration award and ruled that the contractor’s fresh claims were not maintainable.

Background of the Case

The Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board (MPHIDB) had issued a tender for the construction of houses in Riviera Town, Bhopal. The contract was awarded to the respondent, K.P. Dwivedi. The agreement between the parties was executed on July 15, 2005.

Disputes arose in 2008 when the contractor failed to complete the work within the stipulated 18-month period. Despite multiple extensions, the work remained incomplete, leading the Board to rescind the contract under Clause 3 of the contract agreement. The contractor invoked Clause 29 of the agreement and filed a claim before the Deputy Housing Commissioner. He also filed a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking to complete the work.

Petitioner’s (MPHIDB) Arguments

The appellants, represented by the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, raised the following key arguments:

The contractor failed to complete the project despite multiple extensions, forcing the Board to cancel the contract.
The contractor initially submitted claims before the Housing Commissioner, who was appointed as an arbitrator following an order from the High Court.
The Housing Commissioner delivered an arbitral award on November 7, 2008, rejecting the contractor’s claims.
Instead of challenging the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the contractor filed fresh arbitration proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal.
Since the contractor had already participated in arbitration and accepted the decision, fresh arbitration on the same subject was not maintainable.

Respondent’s (K.P. Dwivedi) Arguments

The contractor, represented by senior counsel, contended:

The Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran, 1983 (MP Arbitration Act, 1983) governs all disputes related to works contracts in the state.
Since the contract was a ‘works contract,’ the dispute should have been resolved exclusively by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal.
The appointment of the Housing Commissioner as arbitrator was erroneous, and the resulting award should be considered null and void.
He was entitled to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings under the 1983 Act.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed the case and provided key findings:

1. The Contractor Had Already Invoked Arbitration

The Court noted that the contractor had originally agreed to arbitration before the Housing Commissioner, following the High Court’s directions.

“The respondent-contractor himself invoked the arbitration clause and participated in the arbitration proceedings before the Housing Commissioner.”

Since he did not challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, he was barred from initiating fresh arbitration.

2. The Arbitrator’s Award Was Binding

The Court emphasized that the Housing Commissioner’s decision was final since the contractor never appealed it.

“Once an arbitral award has been passed and has attained finality, the same dispute cannot be reopened by way of a fresh arbitration claim.”

3. The Contractor’s Conduct Showed Acceptance

The Court found that the contractor accepted partial payments awarded in the arbitration and did not object at the relevant time.

“The contractor accepted the award and received payments. He cannot now claim that the proceedings were invalid.”

4. Issue Estoppel Applies

The Court applied the principle of ‘issue estoppel’, which prevents a party from re-litigating an issue that has already been decided.

“A cause of action estoppel arises where two different proceedings involve identical issues. The second proceedings cannot be entertained.”

5. High Court Erred in Allowing Fresh Arbitration

The Court criticized the Madhya Pradesh High Court for allowing the fresh arbitration claim.

“The High Court erred in setting aside the tribunal’s order dismissing the fresh claim. It should have upheld the tribunal’s ruling.”

Supreme Court’s Verdict

After careful consideration, the Supreme Court:

Allowed the appeal filed by the M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board.
Quashed the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment that had allowed fresh arbitration.
Reinstated the arbitral tribunal’s order rejecting the contractor’s fresh claims.
Ruled that the contractor must abide by the original arbitration award.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for arbitration and works contracts:

Finality of Arbitration Awards: Once an award is passed and accepted, fresh arbitration proceedings on the same claims are not maintainable.
Prevents Abuse of Arbitration Process: Contractors cannot bypass unfavorable awards by initiating fresh claims.
Issue Estoppel Strengthened: The ruling reinforces that once an issue is decided, it cannot be re-litigated.
Clarification on State-Specific Arbitration Laws: The ruling establishes that state laws do not override the general principles of arbitration.

The judgment ensures that arbitration remains an effective and conclusive dispute resolution mechanism, preventing parties from reopening settled disputes.

Petitioner Name: M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board & Anr..
Respondent Name: K.P. Dwivedi.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Place Of Incident: Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 03-12-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: m.p.-housing-and-inf-vs-k.p.-dwivedi-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-03-12-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Arbitration Awards
See all petitions in Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all allowed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category