PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) BY way of the present objection petition, Municipal Corporation of Delhi has challenged the award dated 3. 8. 2004 published by Sh. Amarpal Singh, the sole arbitrator appointed by the Commissioner, MCD to decide the disputes raised by the respondent/claimant.

( 2 ) VIDE his award dated 3. 8. 2004, learned arbitrator has allowed in favour of the claimant the following:-Interest has been allowed @ 9% per annum on the sum awarded with effect from 28. 5. 2001. Counter claim of MCD has been rejected.

( 3 ) CLAIMANT was awarded the work for construction of 100 dwelling units for Safai Karamcharies in E-Block, Nand Nagari, JJ Colony, Phase-1, Delhi vide award No. D/ee-X/93-94/tc/43 dated 12. 11. 1993. Completion period was 15 months reckoned from 10 days after issuance of work order. Relevant date of commencement of the work was 19. 11. 1993. Scheduled date of completion was 18. 2. 1995. The work got delayed. MCD extended time for completion upto 31. 8. 2000 (Refer para 4 of the omp ). Claimant who had stopped the work somewhere around 1996 had problem on the amounts being received by him as also escalation in price of raw material which had taken place. It did not carry on with the work. MCD served a show cause notice on 5. 5. 2000 as to why compensation be not levied. On 5. 6. 2000, claimant invoked the arbitration clause. MCD levied compensation in sum of Rs. 4,11,465/ -. On 17. 4. 2001, arbitrator was appointed. While appointing the arbitrator, Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi referred the counter claims of the MCD. Counter claim No. 1 was the claim of the MCD in sum of Rs. 4,11,465/- levied as compensation.

( 4 ) AS noted above, counter claims have been rejected. Claims 1, 2, 4 to 6 as noted above have been allowed.

( 5 ) AT the hearing held on 26. 4. 2005 neither party cited any decision. I would have expected the young counsel for the petitioner to have come prepared with the case law applicable, for indeed, fire power in a court of law is precedents. Counsel left it on the court to research on case law.

( 6 ) SINCE MCD is happy with the findings under the award rejecting claim no. 3, 7, 8 and 9 and since the claimant has not challenged the award, issue pertaining to said claims has attained finality and I need not deal with the issue at all. (I may incidently note that as per objections filed to the award, challenge has been raised to the very arbitrability of claim No. 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 ).

( 7 ) LAYING a challenge to the award, Sh. Sunil Goel urged that the claims were barred by limitation and notwithstanding that the Municipal Corporation of delhi had raised the issue in the pleadings learned Arbitrator has not dealt with the same and accordingly counsel urged that the award is liable to be set aside for the reason the learned arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain a time barred claim.

( 8 ) A perusal of the award shows that the learned arbitrator has not dealt with the issue of limitation at all. Record of the arbitrator reveals that in the written statement filed by the MCD to the statement of claim filed by the claimant, preliminary objection was raised as under:-

1. THAT the claimant miserably failed to observe the mandatory and statutory provisions of clause 8 of the agreement, while non-submitting the bills within the stipulated time, as such the claims are barred by limitation and till date there is no bill submitted by the claimant and after waiting a sufficient time, the respondent measured the work and entered the same in the measurement book from time to time. . . . . . .

( 9 ) THE objection is very unhappily worded, as was conceded by the counsel for the MCD. Objection is that the contractor was not submitting the bills within the stipulated time. So stating, MCD has gone on to aver that the claims are barred by limitation without specifying how. However, record of the learned arbitrator would reveal that the parties filed written submissions. Written submissions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document