JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Since common questions of law and fact arise in both the applications, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2.Heard the Advocates for the parties and perused the records.

3.These are applications for appointment of Arbitrator in terms of section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called "the said Act").

4.It is the case of the applicants that the second respondent awarded work of construction of B Type Quarters at Sada, Vasco-da-Gama to the applicants under Work Order dated 7th January, 1992. Though the work was completed in all respects by October, 1994, the final bill was not prepared and paid till October, 1998. Under the Agreement between the parties in relation to the said work, in terms of Clause 25 thereof, all disputes arising under the Agreement are required to be settled by way of arbitration. The applicants, by letter dated 8th October, 1998, called upon the respondents to finalise the account between the parties and to pay the amount claimed by the applicants within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said letter. It was also made clear in the letter that in the event of failure on the part of the respondents to pay dues claimed by the applicants, the dispute will have to be referred to arbitration and in that event the applicants would be entitled to claim the interest on the amount due as well as costs of the arbitration. On account of failure on the part of the respondents to pay the dues, the applicants, by letter dated 30th November, 1998 requested the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. The respondents having failed to appoint Arbitrator in terms of Clause 25 of the said Agreement, despite of existence of difference between the parties, the applicants have approached this Court by the present applications.

5.On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the applications for appointment of Arbitrator is grossly barred by the law of limitation and on that count alone, the same are liable to be rejected. According to the respondents, the Work Order was issued on 7-1-1992 and the work was required to be completed on 16th January, 1993. It was only on 8th October, 1998 that for the first time the applicants sought to raise certain claims against the respondents and requested for appointment of Arbitrator. The applicants having failed to raise any dispute or demand or the claim within three years from the date of completion of the work and the request for such claim having been made for the first time only on 8th October, 1998 much after the expiry of three years of the completion of the work, the applications are barred by the Law of Limitation. The fact that the work was actually completed in October, 1994 is not denied.

6.It is the contention of the respondents that the applicants did not have any dispute with the Department and that as and by way of an afterthought, they have made claim for the first time on 8th October, 1998. The applicants have filed a copy of their letter dated 8th October, 1998 addressed to the Executive Engineer, Margao. Perusal of the said copy of the letter, discloses that the applicants have claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of various extra items, substituted items, deviated items, for discharge of Bank Guarantee submitted by the applicants initially at the time of assignment of the work, as also a claim of Rs. 3,02,400/- on account of some extra expenditure incurred by the applicants for completion of the work, a claim for Rs. 4,20,000/- towards some materials used in construction work as well as some other claims on various other counts stipulated in the said letter. The reply filed by the respondents also discloses that the fact that the applicants have raised certain claims and pursuant to which dispute has arisen between the parties is not denied, but only defence s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document