IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the timeline for invoking arbitration under the General Condition of Contract is critical and that the arbitrator's jurisdiction is determined by the latest relevant decision regarding the claims, reinforcing the limited scope of judicial review in arbitration cases.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. At the outset, it needs to refer herein that on earlier occasion the instant appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 21.12.2021. However, by an order dated 08.04.2022 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 2820-2822 of 2022, the Hon'ble Apex Court has quashed and set aside the said order remitting the matter before this Court for adjudication of the issue on merit, for ready reference the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is being referred hereunder as :-

“Leave granted.

We have heard Ms. Ekta Bharati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Shri A.K. De, learned counsel for the respondent.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the High Court refusing to condoned the delay of 275 days in preferring the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the State has preferred the present appeals.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considering the averments in the application in support of the prayer to condone the delay, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, one opportunity ought to have been given to the State to submit the case on merits rather than non-suiting the State on the ground of delay.

In view of the above, the present Appeals are allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the delay caused in preferring the appeal before the High Court is hereby condoned. Now, the appeal preferred by the State under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act to be dealt with and considered by the High Court in accordance with law and on its own merits at the earliest subject to compliance of other statutory requirements under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

The appeals are allowed accordingly to the aforesaid extent. No costs.”

The instant appeal, in view thereof, has been revived for hearing the issue on merit.

Prayer

2. The instant appeal preferred by the State under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is directed against the judgment dated 24.08.2018 passed by learned District Judge-XIV-cum-Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No.23 of 2017 corresponding to Misc. Case No. 7 of 2010 by which the arbitral award dated 11.07.2007 passed by the Sole Arbitrator exercising the power conferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1996) has been affirmed.

Facts of the Case

3. The brief facts of the case which are required to be enumerated, reads hereunder as :-

It is the case of the appellant that a Notice Inviting Tender was floated by Executive Engineer Irrigation Department, Sikatia, Deoghar for construction of Ajay Barrage from 0 to 11 bay and its head regulator. Against which, along with other tenderers M/s Hardeo Singh have also submitted their tender.

4. In the light of the decision of Tender Committee, the work was awarded to M/s Hardeo Singh by executing agreement No. 1 – LCB of 1989-90 dated 01.01.1990 for Rs.13,31,64,735/ against estimated value of work for Rs. 12,97,24,165/. The work under the contractor was to be completed within 24 months commencing from 01.01.1990 by 31.12.1991.

5. The work was not completed till 31.12.1991 then time was extended up to June 1994 but the work was not completed. Then after the work progressed slowly with intermittent stoppage till March 1994 and then after completely stopped till October 1998. The work restarted in November 1998 and subsequently a supplementary agreement dated 18.12.1998 was executed for completion of remaining work and some additional work up to June 2000 which was completed within time. The final bill was prepared and paid on 26.02.2004. The execution of work under the contractor and delay in its completion resulted in raising a number of claims by M/s Hardeo Singh related to non-payment of dues as per agreement, payment against additional work and losses suffered due to del