The law of limitation is a valid substantive law that extinguishes the right to appeal, and once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there is no obligation on the Court to consider the merits of the case.

ORDER :

This Special Leave Petition is against an order dated 27th January 2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissing the First Appeal filed by the Petitioners against an order dated 26th April 2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Agra rejecting the Arbitration Miscellaneous Case No. 281 of 2010 filed by the Petitioners under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award dated 17th April 2010 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprised of a former High Court Judge. The First Appeal has been dismissed solely on the ground of delay.

2. The Petitioner State of Uttar Pradesh invited tenders for construction of a Gymnastic Hall in Eklavya Sports Stadium at Agra, pursuant to which the Respondent submitted its tender. The tender submitted by the Respondent being the lowest, the same was accepted.

3. A contract dated 22nd September 1998 was executed by and between the Superintending Engineer, Agra Firozabad Circle, Public Works Department, Agra representing the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Respondent, for construction of the Gymnastic Hall for consideration of Rs.48,55,800/-. The construction was to be completed in twelve months’ time.

4. The said contract dated 22nd September 1998 contained a clause for arbitration. Disputes and differences arose over claims raised by the Respondent on the Petitioner State of Uttar Pradesh, whereupon the Respondent invoked the arbitration clause. Shri N.L. Ganguly, a former Judge of Allahabad High Court was appointed Arbitrator.

5. The Respondent filed its Statement of Claim and the Petitioners filed their Counter Statement/Written Statement. The Written Statement was also permitted to be amended. The validity of the Arbitration Agreement, the arbitrability of the claims raised by the Respondent or the competence of the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes was not in question. After perusing the pleadings and hearing the respective parties, the learned Arbitral Tribunal framed about 18 issues. The respective parties adduced evidence and advanced arguments on each of the issues framed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

6. The learned Arbitral Tribunal made and published an award on 17th April 2020, allowing the claim petition filed by the Respondent and holding, inter alia, that the Respondent was entitled to recover Rs.40,61,264/-from the Petitioners. Each of the issues framed by the Arbitral Tribunal was dealt with by giving cogent reasons.

7. On consideration of materials and/or evidence on record the learned Arbitral Tribunal found that the contract specifically provided for payment for additional or extra work. The Petitioner State failed to cooperate in speedy completion of contract work. Running bills were not paid in time. The final bill was to be prepared by the concerned Engineer of the Public Works Department. The bills were not prepared in time. The Petitioner, State of Uttar Pradesh, had not made excess payment to the Respondent as alleged. The learned Arbitrator also rejected the contention of the Petitioner State that the final payment for the contract of the work had not been made because of want of consent on the part of the Respondent.

8. The Arbitrator rejected the contention of the Petitioner State that it was a condition of the contract that payment in terms of the contract would be subject to availability of funds released by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Such contention of the Petitioner State was preposterous and in any case, unsubstantiated. The Arbitral Tribunal found that the Respondent had been directed to execute additional work in excess of the contract value of Rs.48,55,800/-. The final bill produced by the Petitioner State was found not to be reliable. The final bill raised by the Respondent, supported by documents was accepted as correct. The Respondent was also found to be entitled to return of security deposit.

9. A perusal of the Award makes it amply clear that the learned Arbitrator heard the respective