PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) VIDE IA No. 4518/1996 DDA has laid a challenge to the award dated 23. 12. 1995 published by Shri L. R. Pawa the sole arbitrator appointed vide reference dated 21. 1. 1993 to decide the disputes and differences between m/s. Anand Raj Agencies (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) and DDA (hereinafter referred to as the respondent ).

( 2 ) CLAIMANT was awarded the work of construction of flats and allied works in Trilok Puri, Pocket-F, vide agreement No. 30/ee/dd-VIII/85-86. As is usual with DDA, full payment not being made, claimant raised certain claims and since the contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause, disputes were referred to arbitration. Claimant had 15 substantive claims, some of which had sub- heads. Claim no. 16 and 17 pertained to interest demanded by the claimant.

( 3 ) CLAIMANT submitted its statement of fact vide letter dated 22. 2. 1993. DDA submitted counter statement of fact on 28/31. 7. 1993. Additional counter statement of fact was filed on 1. 10. 1994. Claimant filed rejoined to the original counter statement of fact on 1. 11. 1994. 25 hearings were held. Evidence was led. Award was published on 23. 12. 1995.

( 4 ) A preliminary objection was raised to the very maintainability of the claims before the learned arbitrator on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation and additionally on the ground that the final bill was not submitted by the claimant as per procedure prescribed by Clause 7, 8, 8a and 9 of the agreement.

( 5 ) LEARNED arbitrator held against the DDA and negated the preliminary objections which were raised.

( 6 ) ON the issue of limitation, learned arbitrator held that limitation would run when there is an unequivocal denial of a right asserted by a party. Noting the fact that the DDA finalized the final bill only on 1. 10. 1994 after reference of disputes to arbitration, learned arbitrator held that strictly speaking limitation would commence against claimant from the date of intimation of the preparation of the final bill. Learned arbitrator noted that before the final bill was finalized, claimant had raised the dispute (probably claimant had an incling of what dda intended to certify ). Taking note of the fact that clause 25 of the contract embodied the terms of arbitration, learned arbitrator held that the claims were not barred by limitation. On the issue of clauses 7, 8, 8a and 9, learned arbitrator held that the said clauses pertained to interim certification regarding running bills, submission of interim running bills, measurement of work and interim payment respectively. Learned arbitrator held that the clauses aforesaid were not only procedural but were directory. In this view of the matter, alternative objection to the very maintainability of the claims were rejected.

( 7 ) DURING course of arguments, Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel for DDA briefly touching upon the said findings in the award stated that the findings recorded by the learned arbitrator were patently erroneous for the reason, during payment of running bills, claimant had been urging the basis for finalization of the interim bills, which basis constituted the foundation of the claim. Counsel urged that limitation would run from the date the claim or the basis on which the claims were founded were first raised. On issue of clauses 7, 8, 8a and 9 learned counsel urged that the same are not directory but are mandatory.

( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, date of commencement of the works was 23. 11. 1985 and stipulated date of completion of 22. 11. 1986. There was delay in completion of the work. As per the claimant, work was completed on 15. 7. 1989. Before final bill could be prepared, joint measurement had to be recorded for said measurements would have fixed the schedule of quantities on which final bill was required to be prepared. As per the claimant it had no option but to prepare and submit a final bill on 11. 8. 1992. Letter by which final bill was submitted is ex. P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document