The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the limitation period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, Article 137, and Article 18 in the context of the Arbitration Act.

Jayant Nath, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act) seeking to impugn the Award dated 06.03.2017. The petitioner Company is said to be working in the real estate sector. The respondent Company is engaged in providing services of central air conditioning.

2. The petitioner invited tenders for installation and commissioning of a HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) system in Viva Collage Mall situated at 12 KM Jalandhar-Phagwara Road, Jalandhar, Punjab in 2008. The contract was awarded to the respondent for a total contract price of Rs.12,71,40,000/-. A contract agreement was executed on 08.02.2008. It is contended by the petitioner that as per the contract, the respondent Company had to supply/install, test and commission 4 chillers, 3 imported centrifugal water cooled chilling machine of 650 TR capacity and 1 Rotary screw water cooled chilling machine of 220 TR capacity. An order dated 11.02.2018 was issued to the respondent.

3. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the respondent Company commissioned 3 out of the 4 machines on 23.04.2010. Out of 3 the chillers of 650 ton, only two chillers were commissioned and one chiller has not been commissioned. However, soon problems arose in the performance of the machines installed by the respondent Company. It is stated that every other day, there were some or other problems arising with the chillers compelling the petitioner Company to send a snag list from time to time to the respondent Company requesting it to resolve the problems. The grievance of the respondent was that despite having completed all the work and having commissioned the project, the petitioner did not pay the respondent a balance sum of Rs.1,78,27,556/-.

4. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the respondent filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act before this court. This court appointed an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

5. The learned Arbitrator has now given his Award. An Award has been passed in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner for Rs.1,78,27,556/- along with litigation expenses and interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.09.2010 till realization.

6. The learned Arbitrator framed the following issues:-

"i. Whether the claimant has performed his part of contract and because of the latches on the part of respondent suffered damages amounting to Rs.l,78,27,556/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Eight Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Six only), if so its effects?

ii. Whether the respondent suffered losses from the breach of contract on the part of claimant and thus suffered losses to the tune of counter claim and whether they are entitled to claim 15% pendent lite and future interest on the amount of damages claimed i.e. a total of Rs.7,71,96,439/- (Rupees Seven Crore Seventy One Lacs Ninety Six Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Nine Only), if so its effects?

iii. Whether the respondent was at fault on his part for performing his part of contract and thereby liable to pay damages as well cost of the arbitration proceeding along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum with effect from 01.09.2010?

iv. Whether due to claimant's conduct respondent suffered heavy losses and could not honour the commitment agreed on his part towards third parties, if so whether the respondent is entitled to claim damages by of counter claim with interest at the rate of 15% per annum with effect from 01.09.20107?

v. Whether the claimant is entitled to any relief?

vi. Whether the respondent is entitled to claim relief to by the counter claim?"

7. The learned Arbitrator concluded that the respondent had commissioned the imported centrifugal chilling machines. The water cooled machine was also commissioned. The respondent had installed and comm