Supreme Court Allows Appeals of Housing Board Against High Court Order Directing Arbitration Tribunal to Entertain Fresh Claim Despite Prior Arbitral Award. Principle of Issue Estoppel and Finality of Award Under Arbitration Act, 1996 Applied.

Civil appeals against High Court order in arbitration revision petitions.

Appellants sought to set aside the High Court order directing the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal to entertain the respondent's fresh claim reference.

The respondent contractor filed a fresh claim before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal after an earlier arbitral award had been passed and had become final.

The M.P. Arbitration Tribunal dismissed the reference as not maintainable on 27.02.2017. The High Court in revision quashed that order and directed the Tribunal to decide the reference on merits.

Whether the fresh claim petition before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal under the 1983 Act is maintainable when the same dispute had already been adjudicated by an arbitrator appointed by the High Court and an award had been passed which attained finality. Whether the principle of issue estoppel applies to bar the fresh claim.

Appellants argued that the earlier award had attained finality as it was not challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, and the fresh claim was barred by issue estoppel. The consent order referring the dispute to the Housing Commissioner was binding. Respondent argued that the 1983 Act governed works contracts and the Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction, and the earlier arbitration was without jurisdiction.

The principle of issue estoppel applies to arbitration proceedings. Once an arbitral award has been passed and has attained finality (not challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996), a fresh claim for the same dispute before another forum is not maintainable. A consent order referring the dispute to arbitration is binding on the parties and cannot be collaterally attacked after a long delay.

The learned Arbitrator passed an award on 07.11.2008 rejecting the claim of the respondent contractor and granting some relief in favour of the appellants. Instead of challenging the said award by way of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the respondent filed a fresh Reference Petition before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Vindhyachal, Bhopal. The order passed by the High Court referring the dispute between the parties to the Arbitrator Housing Commissioner was a consent order and the same was as per the relevant arbitration clause in the agreement entered into between the parties. In the case of Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Another vs. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contracters, (2018) 10 SCC 826, relating to the issue of jurisdiction of the M.P. Tribunal, this Hon’ble Court has categorically held that if no objection to the jurisdiction of the arbitration was taken at the relevant stage, that award cannot be annulled only on that ground.

The respondent contractor filed a writ petition in the High Court which was disposed of by consent on 20.08.2008 referring the dispute to the Housing Commissioner as arbitrator. The arbitrator passed an award on 07.11.2008. The contractor did not challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Instead, he filed a fresh reference before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal under the 1983 Act. The Tribunal dismissed the reference on 27.02.2017. The contractor filed a review petition before the High Court seeking clarification of the 2008 order, which was dismissed on 07.09.2017. He then filed arbitration revisions under Section 19 of the 1983 Act, which were allowed by the High Court on 08.05.2018, quashing the Tribunal's order. The Board appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 34
• Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983: Section 7, Section 19