The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of limitation under Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the context of contractual disputes.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Caveat No.746/2018 Caveator is present and will be heard.

Caveat stands disposed of.

C.M. No.33485/2018

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

FAO (OS) (COMM) 186/2018

M/s. Collage Estates Pvt. Ltd. has filed the present intra-Court appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act, for short) read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, 2015.

2. The impugned order dated 4th July, 2018 dismisses objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the A & C Act vide OMP (COMM) No.268/2017, challenging the arbitral award dated 6th March, 2017.

3. The appellant had entered into an agreement dated 8th February, 2008 with Blue Star Limited, respondent before us, for installation and commissioning of Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system in the under construction Viva Collage Mall on Jalandhar-Phagwara Road, Jalandhar, Punjab. The agreement, inter alia, had required installation and commissioning of three imported centrifugal water cooled chillers of 650 TR capacity and one rotary screw water cooled chiller of 220 TR capacity. The total value of the contract awarded by the appellant to the respondent was for Rs.12,71,40,000/-.

4. Disputes arose between the parties and as the parties could not agree over the appointment of an arbitrator, the respondent filed a petition under Section 11 of the A & C Act, before this Court. The petition was allowed vide order dated 21th December, 2015, appointing sole arbitrator to adjudicate and decide the disputes.

5. The primary claim of the respondent was that the appellant had failed to make balance payment of Rs.1,78,27,556/-. The appellant, on the other hand, had pleaded breach of contract on the part of the respondent and had claimed damages under different heads to the tune of Rs.7,71,96,439/-.

6. The Award passed by the learned Arbitrator accepts the claim of the respondent and directs payment of Rs.1,78,27,556/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. Counter claims filed by the appellant have been rejected. The impugned award is a detailed one and runs into as many as 160 typed pages and elucidates and decides the factual and legal pleas raised, including the plea of limitation which we shall refer to and examine in some detail.

7. Contention of the appellant is that the claim made by the respondent was barred by limitation in view of the assertion by the respondent that they had completed installation of four chillers on or before 9th November, 2010 and the arbitration clause was invoked vide notice dated 17th March, 2015. No particular Article of the limitation Limitation Act, 1963 was relied upon by the appellant. Learned single Judge had referred to Article 18 in the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads:-

“Description of suit	Period of limitation	Time from which period begins to run
Time from which period begins to run	Three years	When the work is done.”

8. Rejecting the plea of limitation, learned single Judge in the impugned order has referred to judgment of the Delhi High Court interpreting Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. M/s. Gurbachan Singh & Sons, 208 (2014) DLT 177, wherein it was held:-

“3. xxx

Three things, inter-alia, can be culled out from these paragraphs. Firstly ordinarily on the completion of the work, the right to get payment begins. Though Article 18 is not stated, this line is in terms of Article 18 of the Limitation Act. The second aspect is that a dispute arises when there is a claim on one side and its denial/repudiation by the other. The third aspect is that a person cannot postpone the accrual of cause of action by repeatedly writing letters or sending reminders.

16. A summary of the conclusions on reading o