( 1 ) THE present petition is under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act tor appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with agreement between New Delhi Municipal Committee (hereinafter referred to as Committee) and M/s. Tirath Ram Ahuja (P.) Ltd. , (hereinafter referred to as the contractors ).

( 2 ) A contract was entered into between the Committee and the contractor for construction of a Five Star Hotel now named as Akbar Hotel at Chana- kyapuri, New Delhi. That contract was reduced into writing. Vide that agreement, the construction was to be started by 30th November 1966 and was to be completed by 28th February 1969. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was deposited as security by the contractor with the Committee. The construction was to be made by the contractor under the supervision of an architect named in the agreement. Architect issued a final certificate on 18th October 1970 certifying that net payment of Rs. 18,001 was due to the contractor. The contractor felt dissatisfied and requested for appointment of an arbitrator. Accordingly an arbitrator was appointed and award was made on 9th August 1974. That was filed in court on 22nd October 1974.

( 3 ) IN the meantime Government of India directed technical examination of the works undertaken by the committee, Accordingly the work of construction of aforesaid hotel was also subjected to technical examination by Government organization named as Chief Technical Examiner Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as CTE ).

( 4 ) IT is alleged by the Committee that the report of CTE on the technical examination of the various projects including the work in question was received during May 1972 and that certain defects regarding present work were pointed out in the said report. The Committee on the basis of the said report made claims regarding refund of some of the amounts already paid by means of a letter dated 5th August 1974. The contractor repudiated those claims vide letter dated 14th August 1974. Since disputes and differences arose between the Committee and the Contractor, the former wrote on 12th September 1974 to the latter for referring the disputes to the arbitration, but the latter refused to accede to the request of the former by means of a letter dated 18th September 1974. Hence the present petition was brought by the Committee on 23rd April 1975.

( 5 ) THE contractor contested. He denied that there were any referable disputes left when the matter already stood settled by means of referring the disputes to the arbitrator at his instance. It was also contended that the present application was barred by limitation inasmuch as the same should have been brought within 28 days of the issuance of the final certificate on 18th October 1970, of the architect but the same was brought after about five years of expiry of limitation. Following issues were framed on August 30, 1978:

1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? If so, its effect? OPD 2. Whether the disputes are not referable to arbitration as alleged by the defendants? OPD 3. Relief.

( 6 ) ISSUE No. 1. Some portion of the arbitration clause is relevant for the purpose of deciding this issue because it is urged by the learned counsel for the contractor that right to refer the disputes and differences to the arbitration subsisted only for 28 days after the architect had issued final certificate as provided in cl. 38 of the Agreement of carrying out the work, that admittedly final certificate by the architect had been issued on l8th October 1970 and that there was no right of the committee to refer the disputes to the arbitrator after the expiry of 29 days from l8th October 1970. Relevant portion of arbitration clause No. 47 of the agreement reads as under:

"all disputes and differences of any kind whatever arising out of or us connection with the contract or the carrying out of the works whether during the progress of the work or after their completion and whether before or after the determination, abandonment or b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document