R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. 2088/88 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad questioning the impugned judgment dated 20. 1. 1996 by which the suit filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Old) was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE appellant, who is the plaintiff in the suit, entered into an agreement with the respondents, who represent the Government of India, for executing the work of construction of New Broad Guagc Railway line and other connected works and a written agreement dated 14-7-1983 was executed between them- The said agreement contains an arbitration clause to enable the parties to refer to the arbitrator if any disputes arise between them in connection with the execution of the said work. As disputes arose relating to payment of sonic amounts in connection with the above said work, the appellant submitted eight claims to the respondents on 9-7-1986 claiming the amount covered by the said claims. The respondents allowed claim No. 2 and rejected the claims 1 and 3 to 8 by the proceedings dated 14-12-1987. Thereupon, the appellant requested the first respondent on 21-12-1987 to refer the disputed claims to the arbitrator for decision as per the arbitration clause in the agreement. As the first respondent did not respond for such request, the appellant again renewed such request on 17-8-1988. The first respondent rejected such request on 21-11:1988. Thereupon, the appellant filed the suit O. S. 2088/88 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act requesting the Court to direct the first respondent to file the agreement dated 14-7-1983 into Court and make order of reference for appointment of an arbitrator in respect of the said agreement regarding the disputed claims enumerated in the plaint covering an amount of Rs. 18,72,540. 00. The respondents/defendants contested the said suit mainly contending that the appellant is not entitled for the amounts mentioned in the claims; that such claims are excluded from the purview of arbitration as per the arbitration clause and cannot, therefore, be referred to arbitration; that such claims are also barred by limitation and as such the appellant is not entitled for the relief prayed for in the suit. On the basis of the documentary evidence produced before it, consisting of Exs. Al to A8, the lower Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the disputed claims are excepted from the purview of arbitration in view of the terms of the arbitration clause and as such, they cannot be referred for arbitration and that the claims are also barred by limitation. Questioning the said judgment, the plaintiff has fifed the present appeal.

( 3 ) THE points that arise for consideration tn this appeal are: 1. Whether the claims made by the appellanl/plaintiff cannot be referred to the arbitration under the terms of the agreement on the ground that they arc excepted matters as provided in clause 63 of the agreement? 2. Whether the claims made by the appellant are barred by limitation?point No. 1 : One of the grounds on which the suit was dismissed by the low:cr Court is that the claims made by the appellant for reference to the arbitrator are "excepted matters" as per the provisions of clause-63 of the agreement and as such they are beyond the purview of arbitration. But such view expressed by the lower Court is not sustainable. Clause 63 of the agreement is extracted in the judgment of the lower Court. Clause-63 no doubt provides that matters for which provision lias been made in some of the clauses of General Conditions of Contract or in any clause of the Special Conditions of Contract shall be deemed as "excepted matters", and decision of the Department on such matters shall be final and binding on the Contractor and that such "excepted matters" shall stand specifically excluded from the purview of the arbitration clause and shall not be referred to arbitration. But, the question whether a particular claim is included or exclu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document