The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly in relation to the question of limitation in appointing an arbitrator.

( 1 ) UNION of India has come up in this writ petition challenging the judgement and Order dated 24th March, 2001 passed by learned Additional district Judge, Delhi. By said Order, the learned additional District Judge, Delhi allowed the application of the respondent herein filed under section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 and directed the general Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda house to appoint arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause contained in the General terms of the contract entered into between the parties within 90 days from the date of the said Order. Since pure legal issue is involved which is to be decided in this writ petition, facts in brief and relevant to the context only are noted.

( 2 ) ON 27th September, 1985 the petitioners had awarded the contract for extension of irca building at Chelmsford Road, New Delhi to the respondent. This contract was completed in all respect in the year 1986 and the final bill was prepared in the year 1987. However, vide letter dated 21st August, 1989 the respondent informed the petitioners that the final bill did not include the genuine payments of the respondent and called upon the petitioners to make the payment failing which the petitioners were asked to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the matter in dispute. The petitioners did not appoint an arbitrator even after this notice. However, the respondents also did not take any steps in the matter thereafter. According to the respondent, he kept on representing the petitioners for the appointment of an arbitrator. The petitioners even wrote letter dated 9th March, 1998 directing the respondent to submit the claim- petition again. However, thereafter vide letter dated 1st november, 2000 the petitioners declined to appoint an arbitrator. The respondent filed application under Section 11 (6) of the arbitration Act for appointment of arbitrator in December 2000.

( 3 ) THE petitioners herein apart from taking other objections, submitted that the petition was barred by limitation in the following manner :-

"para 7 (xii) of the petition is wrong and denied. It is submitted that the petitioner after a period of two years after recording of measurements submitted his letter dated 21. 08. 1989 asking for the arbitration as the matters were excepted matters, therefore, his request could not be considered. It is further submitted that the petitioner vide his letter dated 03. 11. 1997 requested for appointing Arbitrator which was turned down as the matter was barred by time. It is denied that there was any dispute or difference between the petitioner and the respondent. It is admitted that under clause 64 of General Conditions of contract, the arbitrator is to be appointed for adjudication of the dispute and difference between the parties. But, in the present case, no claim is referable to Arbitrator for adjudication as the acts of the respondents are justified and lawful and have been done under the provisions of the contract. "

( 4 ) AS already noted above, learned additional District Judge has allowed the application of the petitioner by the impugned Order. The contention regarding application of the respondent being time barred is rejected by the learned Additional District Judge in the impugned Order in the following terms "undisputably under the said contract both the parties were to be governed by clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract that provided for arbitration. In para 7 (xii) of the application in hand, it has been specifically averred that the applicant-petitioner had asked for the arbitration within time. There is no specific denial of such an averment in the reply filed by the respondent in the corresponding paragraph of the reply. It has, therefore, to be taken that the applicant-petitioner did invoke the such arbitration clause and sought appointment of the Arbitrator within time. In the pleadings of the respondent there is also no specific denial to the averments made in p