The court upheld the arbitrator's award as reasoned and clarified that limitation provisions do not apply to arbitration applications under the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, Chief Justice (Acting):

1. Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment/order dated 23.04.2010 passed in AA No. 18/2007 titled Union of India Vs. Mohinder Singh whereby the award passed by the Arbitrator has been partially accepted and upheld.

2. With a view to understand the controversy in its correct perspective, it is necessary to give a brief background in the light of which the present disputes have arisen between the parties relating to Contract Agreement No.GE(P)18/1992-93 dated 18th August, 1992 with regard to fencing of certain installations at Nagrota. The said disputes were referred to an arbitrator for adjudication in view of clause 70 of the General Condition of Contract of IAFW 2249 forming part of the Contract Agreement.

3. The arbitrator after entertaining detailed claims and counter claims passed an award in favour of the claimant, which was questioned by the Union of India before a Single Bench of this Court under Section 34 of the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1977 on the following grounds:

(A) That time barred claims were referred to the arbitrator for arbitration;

(B) That while awarding compensation for loss of suffering due to blockage of payment for work done, the same was beyond the terms of the contract and not arbitrable;

(C) That the arbitrator had not given a reasoned award as was required in terms of condition 70 of the General Conditions of the contract.

4. The learned Single Judge after appreciating the entire controversy, rejected the plea of the Union of India regarding the claims being time barred on the ground that no such plea has been raised before the learned Arbitrator. The second plea that the award was not a reasoned award was also rejected by holding that the same was a reasoned award. However, the award to the extent of Rs.1,78,759.46 as claimed under Claim No. 3 by the claimant on account of ‘loss suffered due to blockage of payment of work done not released and damages sustained in loss of turnover and profit’ was rejected. It is this judgment and order dated 23.04.2010 passed by learned Single Judge, which has been challenged in the present appeal/cross-appeal by both the Union of India as also the claimant respectively.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The following issues come for consideration in the present appeals: -

(a) Whether the award passed by the learned Arbitrator is a non-speaking award;

(b) Whether the application filed by the claimant on 24th of Sept., 2005 seeking reference for arbitration was time barred;

(c) Whether the arbitrator could have allowed damages on account of turnover/profit.

Issue No.1:

With regard to first issue, it may be stated that a bare perusal of the award passed by the learned arbitrator, reveals that the same is a well-reasoned award. The learned arbitrator has dealt with every claim and counter claim, discussed the pleadings and the documents produced as evidence in support thereof and not only recorded the requisite satisfaction, but, also gave reasons before finally awarding the sums against each claim. The claim decided, in no way, be said to be a non-speaking one. .

Issue No.2

The second issue that has been raised in the present proceedings by the Union of India is that the claims referred to the learned arbitrator for adjudication were time barred claims.

One of the grounds urged in the appeal filed by the Union of India for challenging the award in question rests on the plea that since the contract was completed in the year 1977 and the claimant had approached the appellant for appointment of arbitrator in the year 2005, the rights, if any, were barred by limitation and that no reference could have been made at all. Article 181 of the Limitation Act has been referred to emphasize the point that at best a request for reference of disputes to arbitrator could have been asked for within three years from the date the right to apply accrued. It was in that context urg