The starting point of limitation for claims arising from deductions in running bills depends on the nature of the deduction, and for claims made in the final bill, limitation begins from the date of intimation to the contractor of the Government's decision on the final bill.

( 1 ) A special case has been stated by the arbitrator in the above arbitration proceedings for the opinion of the Court on a question of law. The question of" law referred is whether certain claims made by M. L. Dalmiya and Co. , the claimant in the above proceedings against the Government is barred by limitation.

( 2 ) THE contractor's claims arise out of three contracts evidenced by the three tenders all of 1943 and duly accepted by the Government. The terms and conditions are usual as in Government Contracts in standard form. Reference to the terms will have to be made later. The contractor from time to time submitted running bills which were paid after certain deductions and recoveries were made. The running bills were submitted and payments were made in 1943, 1944 and 1946. Though the works under the contracts were actually completed as far back as September 15, 1943, no completion certificate was given to the contractor signifying that the works should be deemed to have been completed. The final bill appears to have been passed by the Government on February 18, 1949, but no intimation was given to the contractor of the passing of the final bill till April 28, 1954, when the Executive Engineer intimated to the contractor by letter of even date the Government's decision in answer to the contractor's claim submitted on May 9, 1952.

( 3 ) IN September 1954, the contractor applied for arbitration under the arbitration clause in the different contracts and there was a reference.

( 4 ) THE contractor's claims may be stated as under:i. Contract No. AV II/101 of 1943-44 dated 31st July, 1943. These are recoveries made from the contractor's running bill. Item 1. Recovery of Bamboo rafters amounting to Rs. 4583/5/ -. Item 2. Recovery of cement amounting to Rs. 11,642/8/ -. The contractor's case is that the price of 2101 tons 17 cwts. of cement have been recovered from the running bills under different vouchers of 1943, when in fact only 1869 tons of cement was issued to the contractor. Thus there has been an excess recovery of Rs. 11,642/8/- being the price of 232 tons 17 cwts. of cement not supplied but charged for. The claim on account of bamboo rafters is on the ground that the Government made deductions from the different bills alleging that lesser size bamboo rafters than specified were used in all the buildings having thatched roofs. The contractor by a letter dated January 27, 1945, protested against such deductions. The amount of such deductions come to Rs. 4583/5/ -. These are the two items of disputed claim on the running bills under the above contract. Other claims are amounts disallowed in the final bills on various accounts. II. Contract No. AV II/100 of 1943-44 dated 31st July, 1943. There are two items of dispute. Of these, one is for Rs. 437/12/- of account of recovery of bamboo rafters from the running bills. The deduction has been made on the same ground as above from the running bills. The other dispute being the difference in the recovery rates of bricks and storage charges. According to the statement of claim this claim has been abandoned and withdrawn by the contractor. III. Contract No. AV II/7 of 1942-43 dated 30th April 1943. The contractor has claimed payment of Rs. 2840/- in the final bill being the price of 355 gallons of mobil oil supplied at the rate of Rs. 8/- per gallon. There is one claim for refund of Rs. 168/- being the cost of 24 tins of kerosene oil recovered from his third running bill paid on 19-10-43. Another item of claim is for extra works alleged to have been done by the contractor. For this work no measurement appears to have been effected.

( 5 ) THE contracts are in standard form and are subject to certain conditions. These conditions are important and have a bearing on the question of limitation that requires adjudication. The clauses to which reference was made by learned counsel in argument have to be noticed.

( 6 ) CLAUSE 1 provides for furnishing of security