IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the scope of judicial review of arbitral awards is highly restricted, and an award can only be set aside on specific grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, or conflict with public policy.

JUDGMENT :

SINDHU SHARMA, J.

1. This application under Section 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as Arbitration Act) for setting aside of the arbitration award dated 07.12.2013 passed by the sole Arbitrator Er. Zahoor Ahmad Chat, Executive Director, JKSPDC.

2. Lakes and Water Development Authority (LAWDA) (applicant herein), invited tenders vide NIT No. 2 of 5/2001, dated 11.05.2021 issued by the Executive Engineer, Civil Division, LAWDA, Srinagar vide its Endorsement No. CD/LWDA/577-606, dated 11.05.2001 for Mechanical Dredging/Desilting of Bed of Dal Lake near Shalimar Bridge to the required depth including all types of leads and lifts, carriages up to dumping site, dumping, leveling and dressing etc., as a complete job, as per the requirements of the Authority at the cost of Rs. 19,38,850/-. The respondent participated in the NIT and upon being successful was allotted the aforesaid work which was to be completed within stipulated time as mentioned in the NIT.

3. Dispute arose between the parties pertaining to the payment on account of work done. The applicant asked the respondents for signing of works register for an amount of Rs. 6,45,635/- but the respondent refused to sign the Works Register for an amount of Rs. 6,45,635/-, as settled by the authority and submitted his own bill for an amount of Rs. 19,05,250/-. The applicants did not agree to the amount raised by the respondent and consequently, no payment was released to the respondents.

4. The respondent No. 1, i.e., Contractor, aggrieved of inaction of respondent for releasing his work done payment, approached this Court by filing the writ petition bearing OWP No. 654/2003 regarding release of payment for the works executed by him. This writ petition was dismissed on 03.11.2006, as being not maintainable, however, the respondent was granted liberty to agitate the same through appropriate proceedings. Aggrieved of the judgment in the writ petition, the respondent filed LPA No. 177/2008. The appellate court, dismissed the appeal by the applicant against the judgment dated 16.04.2010 with the observation that the dismissal of the appeal shall not prevent the respondent to avail appropriate remedy as may be available to him under the provisions of law.

5. The respondent No. 1, thereafter, approached the Civil Court by filing a suit for recovery and injunction and sought a decree to recover of an amount of Rs. 35,33,850/- along with interest @ 18% and also permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from recovery of his loan amount till full and final payment is released. During the pendency of this suit, applicants (LAWDA) filed an application seeking a reference of the dispute raised by the respondent for arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In his response to the application to reference, the respondent submitted his no objection to the reference of the dispute for arbitration, as sought by the applicant. The applicants thereafter also provided a list of the arbitrators for reference of the dispute of the arbitration to which the respondent gave his concurrence. The learned 4th Additional District Judge referred the matter to the Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute vide order dated 26.07.2011.

6. The Arbitrator passed the impugned award on 07.12.2013 awarding an amount of Rs. 30,01,527/- in favour of the claimant to be paid by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The applicants have assailed this order of arbitration on the following grounds:

a. That the award passed by the Arbitrator is illegal as the claim put forth by the respondent No. 1 was time barred. Since the period of limitation prescribed for availing the opportunity of remedy in arbitration proceedings is three years and in the present case, the proceedings were initiated in the year 2011, as such, the claim put forth by the respondent was barred by limitation in terms of Section 43 of Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliati