IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the existence of an arbitration agreement does not preclude a party from filing a suit, and the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to determine the timeliness of claims.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 12.07.2022 (hereafter 'the impugned order') passed by the learned Commercial Court, Delhi whereby, the respondent's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter 'the CPC') was allowed. Consequently, the suit filed by the appellant being CS(COMM) No.226/2019 captioned Shri Anil Khandelwal Proprietor M/s Nand Kishore Anil Kumar v. The Registrar, University of Delhi, was dismissed.

2. The learned Commercial Court accepted the respondent's plea that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned Commercial Court also observed that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties and therefore, the appellant could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Therefore, the aforementioned suit was not maintainable.

3. The principal controversy to be examined is whether the suit filed by the appellant was ex facie barred by limitation. And, whether the suit could be rejected as not maintainable on the ground that the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement.

Factual Context

4. The appellant claimed that he was carrying on his business of construction and allied activities under the name of his sole proprietorship concern named M/s Nand Kishore Anil Kumar. The respondent (University of Delhi) had awarded a contract for construction to the appellant for the construction of "Vertical Extension of Two Stories of the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical Research, North Campus, University of Delhi" for a consideration of Rs. 2,26,96,182.55/- in terms of a Letter of Award (LoA) dated 13.10.2008. The work was required to be completed within a period of fifteen months to be reckoned from ten days after the date of issuance of the LoA.

5. The appellant claims that thereafter a formal agreement was executed between the parties, which provided that the work would commence on 10.11.2008. The stipulated date of completion was fixed as 09.02.2010.

6. The appellant claims that the work was finally completed on 30.11.2010 despite being temporarily stopped during the period from 13.04.2009 to 30.10.2009.

7. The appellant claimed that he raised running account bills from time to time. And, after completion of the works, he submitted the final bill subject to the condition that additional expenditure would be claimed later.

8. Admittedly, the appellant was paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 2,71,19,725/- against the bills including, that of the final bill. The appellant claims that he accepted the said amount "on the condition and assurance of the defendant that the additional expenditure will be claimed latter on".

9. The appellant has averred in its plaint that on 08.02.2016, he had sent a letter to the respondent for release of payment under Clause 10C of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) and payment for reimbursement of testing charges. The letter dated 08.02.2016 indicates that the appellant had requested for release of the following payments:

"1. Payment of Rs. 18.25 Lacks approx under clause 10C for reimbursement of labour and interest.

2. Payment of Rs. 50,800/- bill already submitted for reimbursement of testing charges."

10. The appellant has averred that, thereafter, he sent another letter dated 16.11.2017 to the University Engineer, University of Delhi giving details as to the payments required to be made for the completed works.

11. The appellant claims that since, the payments as due were not made, he sent a letter dated 18.01.2018 to the Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi regarding clearance of the bills generated by the appellant on 08.10.2015. The appellant claims that thereafter, he sent another letter dated 08.02.2018 for clearing of payments as the payment of VAT (Value Added Tax) had to be cleared by the Government. This was in context of the roll out of the Goods and Services Tax reg