SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The appellant, a contractor, participated in the tender for construction of Municipal Staff Quarters floated in June, 1991 and was successful. Subsequently, a work order dated 16.01.1992 was issued in favour of the appellant for an estimated cost of Rs.1,20,77,499/-. The work had to commence on 25.01.1992 and was required to be completed within a period of 18 months.

2. The work actually commenced only on 08.01.1993 and was completed on 10.01.1997. It is relevant to note that the time for completion of the contract was extended till the aforementioned date without levy of any penalty. The appellant was required to submit a final bill in terms of clause 7 of the agreement but the undisputed fact is that no such final bill was submitted. On the other hand, the appellant claimed that it was addressing various communications to the respondent for payment of the amount, but to no avail (these letters are disputed by the respondent). The fact, however, remains that on 12.12.2001 a payment of Rs.18,72,839/- was made to the appellant. The appellant called upon the MCD vide its letter dated 15.01.2002 requesting payments alleged to be outstanding to be released within 15 days and upon failure of the same, invoked the arbitration clause on 18.02.2002. In view of the failure in appointment of an arbitrator, the appellant filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the said Act’ for short) and in those proceedings, by an order dated 25.03.2003, the learned single Judge of this Court (as he then was) appointed Justice H.C. Goel (Retired) as the sole arbitrator.

3. The learned arbitrator commenced arbitration proceedings and made and published an award dated 27.03.2006. The case placed by the appellant before the learned arbitrator was that there were defaults on the part of respondent which resulted in delay of the work. The burden to prepare the final bill was sought to be put on the respondent and the appellant claimed further escalation charges as per clause 10CC of the agreement for work done beyond the original stipulated date of the contract.

4. A preliminary objection was sought to be raised on account of the bar of limitation on which decision was sought to be invited first. The respondent claimed that the application under Section 11 of the said Act itself was filed beyond the period of three years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. It is, however, pleaded that the respondent had made payments of all the bills as raised by the appellant which had been accepted in full and final settlement of its dues.

5. The parties led their evidence before the learned arbitrator and on behalf of the appellant the sole proprietor alone tendered an affidavit annexing a number of documents.

6. The material aspect for consideration is certain communications stated to have been addressed periodically by the appellant to the respondent raising the issue of the amounts outstanding to the appellant. However, the evidence on behalf of the respondents seeks to rebut the same and it has been deposed (in the affidavit of the Executive Engineer, MCD) that no such letters have been found in the records of the respondents.

7. The learned arbitrator in the award opined that as per clause 7 of the agreement, the contractor gets a period of one month for submission of the final bill and though no time period has been fixed for passing of the final bill by the Engineer In Charge, a period of one month can be taken as a reasonable period. The learned arbitrator has rejected all the claims primarily on account of them being barred by limitation though there is some discussion qua some of the claims on merits and thus in terms of the award dated 27.03.2006 all claims of the appellant stand rejected.

8. The appellant thereafter filed objections under Section 34 of the said Act. These objections have been dismissed by the learned single Judge in terms of the impugned order dated