L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) ). THIS revision under Section 115 c. P. C. is directed against the order in o. P. No. 41 of 1997, dated 27-8-2002, passed by the learned n Additional Senior Civil judge, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners in the O. P. are the petitioners in the revision.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant to the revision, in brief, are as under:

( 3 ) IN the year 1987 the respondents, viz. , the Commander of Works Engineer and Chief Engineer, Navy, Visakhapatnam, issued tender notice dated 24-8-1987, inviting tenders for the work of construction of residential quarters. The 1st petitioner-for short, the petitioner, is a firm engaged in the construction activity (Petitioners 2 and 3 are its managing partners ). It quoted a sum of rs. 28,87,124. 90 ps. and emerged as the successful tenderer. The work was scheduled to be completed within 18 months from 23-8-1988. After several extensions being granted, the work was ultimately completed by 7-12-1992. The petitioner submitted the final bill in the year 1993 after the completion of the work. In addition to the rates as per contract, it claimed a sum of Rs. 2,38,389. 73 ps. towards escalation charges. The respondents refused to pay the escalation charges and paid the final bill.

( 4 ) THE petitioner issued a notice dated 31. 1. 1994, making a claim for Rs. 26,36,389. 73ps. under various heads. It also claimed compensation/interest at 36% per annum on this amount. Invoking Clause 70 of the general Conditions of Contract (IAFW- 2249), petitioner called upon the respondents to refer the dispute for arbitration by an engineer Officer to be appointed by them. The respondents issued a reply dated 30-9-1994 stating that the petitioner was paid the final bill against the contract on 7-4-1993; and that it issued a "no further claim certificate" (for short, the certificate) declaring that it had no subsisting claims against the respondents. The respondents further stated that any claims on behalf of the petitioner are deemed to have been waived or extinguished and accordingly informed the petitioner that its claim for reference of the matter for arbitration cannot be entertained.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner addressed a letter dated 30-10-1995 reiterating its request the respondents in turn, have repeated their stand to the reply dated 15-6-1996. Then the petitioner got issued an Advocate s notice on 14-11-1996 and thereafter filed the O. P. under Sections 8 and 20 of the indian Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) with a prayer to appoint an Arbitrator and direct such arbitrator to take necessary steps to resolve the dispute. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit narrating the relevant facts. They have raised three main objections for the claim of the petitioner, viz. , (a) non-applicability of the old Act to the proceedings, (b) The application being barred by limitation and (c) non-maintainability of the claim, in view of the submission of certificate by the petitioner.

( 6 ) NO oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exs. A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. Respondents did not file any documents. The Trial Court took note of the contentions of the parties, and in particular the three objections raised on behalf of the respondents. Through the judgment under revision, the Trial Court took the view that the provisions of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act) apply to the proceedings and that the O. P. is barred by limitation. Obviously, because the O. P. was found not maintainable and barred by limitation, it has not discussed the effect of submission of certificate by the petitioner.

( 7 ) SRI C. S. Surya Prakash Rao, appearing for Sri Ravi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the view taken by the Trial Court, be it, as regards the applicability of the old Act to the proceedings or, the question of limitation, cannot be sustained in law. He submits that the record clearly disclose

Click Here to Read the rest of this document