S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. By this appeal, the original respondent in Arbitration Petition No. 466 of 2006 challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th December, 2011. By the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge allowed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act of 1996”) filed by respondent-Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited. The result was that the sole Arbitrator's award came to be set aside.

2. Since this appeal invokes section 37 of the Act of 1996 and is directed against the order setting aside the arbitral award, we proceed to formally admit it. Filing of paper book is dispensed with as there is an common compilation of the relevant documents placed before us. Since both sides agreed to final disposal of the appeal itself, notice of hearing of the appeal stands dispensed with.

3. The only question that arises for our consideration is, whether the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the arbitral award on the ground that the underlying claim of the appellant before us was barred by limitation. At the outset, we must indicate that there is a difference and in law between a reference to arbitration being barred by limitation and even if that is not barred, the claim, in relation to which the reference is made, is barred by limitation. It is only on the latter aspect, that the learned Single Judge feels that the award contains a perverse finding and therefore deserves to be set aside. Hence, only two points arise for consideration before us in this appeal and they are, whether the view of the learned Single Judge that the award grants a time barred claim and is therefore perverse and contravenes the public policy of India, is correct. Secondly, if that is not correct, then, what relief should be granted to the appellant.

4. Before we refer to the rival contentions and relevant findings in the impugned order, we deem it appropriate to set out the undisputed facts.

5. It is common ground that the respondent before us is the State Power Generation Company Limited. The Electricity Act 2003 has now trifurcated the original Maharashtra State Electricity Board. There is a separate entity like the respondent, which is in-charge of power generation. There is another entity created by law, which is styled as a Transmission Licensee and thirdly, there is a Distribution Company (Licensee). The respondent before us is a power generation company. It filed the subject Arbitration Petition No. 466 of 2006 alleging that the award of the sole Arbitrator in allowing a time barred claim of the appellant before us, is illegal and contravenes the Public Policy of India. The finding in relation thereto contravenes the law of limitation prevailing in India and hence, the award is contrary to public policy of India.

6. It is common ground that there was a tender floated for the purpose of the works covered by the contract. That was a pre-water treatment plant at the MSDCL's Thermal Power Station. The appellant before us forwarded its bid and tender and was declared successful. It came to be awarded the contract. The work order was issued and the work was, design, manufacture, supply, erection, testing and commissioning of the pre-water treatment plant. There were several documents, including a layout plan and various drawings, including SKM-39, SKM-07 and SKM-98, were supplied to the bidders. The lumpsum price quoted by the appellant was 15,46,75,712/- and the breakup of the amount was in relation to the nature of the work. For civil works, the amount quoted was 6,50,35,005/-. For mechanical works, the amount quoted was 6,10,79,918/- and for electrical works, the amount was 2,49,47,475/-. On 4th March, 1989, the tender/bid of the appellant was accepted and the work order was issued mentioning therein various terms and conditions. On