IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Arbitration – When there is no arbitration clause in agreement between parties, provisions of 1996 Act will have no application.
(2) Scope for interference with award of Arbitration Tribunal in revisional jurisdiction ws very narrow.

JUDGMENT

Abhay S. Oka, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

1. The first appellant, the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, has been constituted under the provisions of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Act, 1974. A tender was invited by the executive engineer of the first appellant to carry out the drainage work in an industrial area. The respondent offered a bid which the first appellant accepted. Accordingly, an agreement was executed on 15th December 2007 by and between the first appellant and the respondent. After issuing a notice, the first appellant terminated the agreement and forfeited the security deposit of the respondent.

2. Under the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 (for short "the 2008 Act"), the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal (for short, "the Arbitration Tribunal") has been constituted for dealing with and deciding the disputes between the parties to a works contract. Clause (a) of Section 2 of the 2008 Act defines what is meant by a works contract.

3. Under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the 2008 Act, when any dispute arises between the parties to the contract, irrespective of the fact whether such contract does or does not contain an arbitration clause, either party can refer the dispute in writing in the prescribed form to the Arbitration Tribunal. The dispute can be referred within one year from the date on which the dispute has arisen. The respondent filed a reference to the Arbitration Tribunal on 21st March 2013. The dispute was regarding the termination of the agreement made on 8th June 2010. The Arbitration Tribunal made an award on 15th September 2014. One of the contentions raised by the first appellant before the Arbitration Tribunal was that the respondent did not refer the dispute to the Arbitration Tribunal within one year from the date on which the dispute had arisen as provided under subsection (1) of Section 9 of the 2008 Act. The Arbitration Tribunal held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (For short, "the 1963 Act") was applicable. Hence, it was held that the reference made to the Arbitration Tribunal on 21st March 2013, raising a dispute about the termination order dated 8th June 2010, was not barred by limitation. The Arbitration Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to a refund of the earnest money and the security deposit. It was held that the respondent was entitled to unpaid dues in the sum of Rs. 27,94,990/- (Rupees twenty-seven lakh ninety-four thousand nine hundred ninety only). The Arbitration Tribunal held that the respondent is entitled to Rs. 22,42,269/- (Rupees twenty-two lakh forty-two thousand two hundred and sixty-nine only) towards the security deposit. In addition, the Arbitration Tribunal held that the respondent is entitled to the amounts of Rs. 6,22,476/- (Rupees six lakh twenty-two thousand four hundred seventy-six only) and Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) deducted towards the penalty by the first appellant. Even the amount of provisional deduction in the sum of Rs. 3,68,400/- (Rupees three lakh sixty-eight thousand four hundred) was ordered to be refunded to the respondent. The Tribunal granted simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amounts mentioned above. Except on the amount of Rs. 22,42,269/-, interest was made payable from 29th July 2010. On the amount of Rs. 22,42,269/-, interest at the same rate was made payable from 1st February 2011.

4. Being aggrieved by the award, the appellants filed a revision petition before the High Court by invoking Section 13 of the 2008 Act. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. The High Court also held that Article 137 of the 1963 Act was applicable and, therefore, the dispute raised by the respondent was not barred by the limitation.

5. Shri Rajiv Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the 2008 Act, a reference to t