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

M/S GANGOTRI ENTERPRISES LTD. versus MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANR.

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)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2018] 4 S.C.R. 260 · 2018 INSC 360
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 261, margin C

2

Our attention has been drawn to the definition of “dispute” under Section 2(d) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (“1983 Act”) which is as follows: “‘dispute’ means claim of ascertained money valued at Rupees 50,000 or more relating to any difference arising out of the execution or non-execution of a works contract or part thereof.”

p. 261, margin C

3

We consider it appropriate to clarify that the expression “ascertained money” as used in Section 2(d) of the 1983 Act will include not only the amount already ascertained but the amount which may be ascertained during the proceedings on the basis of claims/ counter claims of the parties.

p. 261, margin D

4

Our attention has also been drawn to Section 4(3)(iii) of the 1983 Act to submit that consistent with the policy of law and the judgment of this Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. vs. Raja Transport Private Ltd., (2009) 8 SCC 520, an employee of a party to the dispute cannot be an arbitrator. Section 4(3)(iii) of the 1983 Act is in the following terms: “4. Chairman and members of Tribunal and their qualifications.- (3) No person shall be qualified for appointment as a member of the Tribunal, unless- (iii) he is or has been :- (a) Chief Engineer in the service of the State Government in Public Works, Irrigation or Public Health Engineering Department; or (b) a Chief Engineer in the service of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board; or (c) a Senior Deputy Accountant General of the Office of the Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh, for a period of not less than five years: Provided that in the case of clause (iii), in exceptional circumstances, the State Government may relax the prescribed minimum period of five years to three years.”

pp. 261–262, margin E

5

We clarify that the State of Madhya Pradesh will not appoint as member of the Tribunal, its employee of the concerned department to which the dispute relates.

p. 262, margin C

6

The appeal stands disposed of as above. S.L.P.(C)….D. No. 10817/2018 and S.L.P.(C)…..D. No. 12928/ 2018: Delay condoned. The special leave petitions shall also stand disposed of in terms of the order passed today in S.L.P. (C) No. 6513 of 2018. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

p. 262, margin D