Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

PURI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Decided
18 April 2018
Judges listed
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, R.F. NARIMAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)

Citations

Official
[2018] 4 S.C.R. 257 · 2018 INSC 360

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

p. 258, margin D

2

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

p. 258, margin E

3

An agreement was executed between the parties on 11th May, 1984 for construction of Assembly building in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Dispute arose from the agreement. The High Court of Delhi appointed an arbitrator vide order dated 13th December, 1988. The Arbitrator gave the award on 21st June, 1989 which was made Rule of the Court by Delhi High Court on 28th September, 1989. Execution proceedings were taken by the appellant. Learned Single Judge allowed the execution vide Order dated 6th September, 1991 against which an appeal was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court.

p. 258, margin E

4

The Division Bench vide order dated 5th July, 2012 directed that the enforceability of the decree will depend upon the fate of another appeal which was pending between the parties. The said appeal, FAO (OS)No.23/1998, is still pending but the High Court has deferred the same pending decision of larger Bench of this Court in pursuance of judgment of this Court in Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Anr. v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors, (2012) 3 SCC 495. It may be noted that the larger Bench has decided the matter on 8th March, 2018. In terms of the said decision the dispute between the parties has to be settled in accordance with the provisions of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (M.P. Act).

pp. 258–259, margin G

5

However, since in the present case the award has been rendered long back which was not challenged by the respondents and the matter is pending at the stage of execution, we direct that the award be treated to have been rendered under the M.P. Act.

p. 259, margin B

6

In view of above, we transfer pending proceedings before Delhi High Court being FAO (OS)NO.23/1998 and connected matters to High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur to be treated as revision petition under the M.P. Act.

p. 259, margin C

7

Another dispute between the parties was referred to arbitration vide order dated 19th May, 1993. However, before the arbitration proceedings could be decided the arbitrators are said to have expired.

p. 259, margin C

8

In the circumstances pending Arbitration proceedings shall stand transferred to the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal under the M.P. Act, to be dealt with as per provisions of the M.P. Act in accordance with law. The proceedings may be carried out in continuation of earlier proceedings.

p. 259, margin D

9

The parties may take steps by moving the High Court or any other forum for transfer of records to the transferee courts in the light of this Order.

p. 259, margin E

10

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

p. 259, margin F

11

The parties may appear before the High Court/Tribunal for further proceedings on 9th July, 2018.

p. 259, margin F