The plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and must be raised at the first available opportunity. Objections not raised before the arbitrator cannot be entertained at a later stage.

1. The Petitioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’), has in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenged an Award dated 12th April 2006 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the MCD and the Respondent M/s. Harcharan Dass Gupta, arising out of a contract entered into between the parties whereby the work of construction of staff quarters at Model Town, Sub-Head: Construction of four blocks of Type-A, Group C, was entrusted to the Respondent by the MCD.

2. The date of the start of the work was 13th April 1992 and the stipulated period of completion was 15 months. However, work did not actually begin till 25th November 1992. As against the stipulated date of completion of 12th October 1993, the work was actually completed on 15th May 1995. Extension of time (‘EOT’) was granted by the MCD to the Contractor without levy of any compensation. The Contractor gave an undertaking to the effect that he would claim neither escalation nor compensation for delay in the completion of the work. 75% of the security was released on 13th February 1998 and the last payment was made on 31st March 1998.

3. According to the MCD, the Respondent invoked the arbitration clause only on 13th December 2002. Ten claims of the Contractor were referred to arbitration and by the impugned Award dated 12th April 2006 the learned Arbitrator awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,45,67,868.

1. 4. A perusal of the impugned Award shows that there were five preliminary objections taken by the MCD. The first was that the Contractor had sought reference of disputes to arbitration beyond the time prescribed under Clause 25 of the agreement and further that the learned Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims under Section 28

(3) of the Act. While rejecting this objection, the learned Arbitrator noted that apart from merely reproducing Section 28 (3) of the Act, the MCD had not actually shown how the claims were outside the ambit of Clause 25 or how Section 28 (3) was attracted.

1. 5. The second preliminary objection was that various bills including the final bill prepared by the MCD were accepted by the Contractor without any protest and therefore, nothing remained to be arbitrated upon as the payments were received towards full and final settlement. While rejecting this preliminary objection the learned Arbitrator noted “admittedly, the final bill has not been prepared till date. Respondent sought opportunity to file a final statement of account during proceedings but despite last opportunity granted on 28th February 2006, failed to file it.” The third preliminary objection was that since the Contractor had failed to indicate any specific violation on the part of the MCD, or the amount incurred by the Contractor as a result of such violation, the Contractor was not entitled to claim anything under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The learned Arbitrator rejected this objection by observing that this actually related to the merits of the claim.

2. 6. The fourth preliminary objection was that claims which were based on delay in supply of steel and cement were not arbitrable as Form No. 37 and Condition No. 24 thereof formed part and parcel of the terms and conditions of the agreement. The Contractor could only have claimed EOT without levy of compensation and could not have claimed compensation for the delay in supply of steel and cement. The said objection was rejected by holding that there was nothing on record to show that Form No. 37 including

Condition No. 24 thereof formed part and parcel of the contract between the parties. The fifth preliminary objection was that delay was on the part of the Contractor in not lifting the requisite material of cement and steel within time and therefore, the claim on that behalf was not tenable. This objection was rejected by the learned Arbitrator by pointing out that EOT was granted by the MCD to the Respondent up to the actual date of com