Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
RAMAPRASADA RAO & NATARAJAN
The State of Madras, represented by the Collector of Ramanathapuram at Mudurai
Versus
D. Muthiah Chettiar
App. No. 741 of 1967
Decided On :Decided on: 06-02-1974
CONTRACT - ARBITRATION - LIMITATION - Whether suit for compensation for breach of contract is barred by limitation - Applicability of Art. 115 or Art. 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 - Whether time taken for arbitration proceedings can be excluded under S. 14(1) of the Limitation Act - Interpretation of S. 37(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a contractor, entered into a contract with the State of Madras for the construction of a bridge. Disputes arose between the parties, and the contract was terminated by the State. The plaintiff initiated arbitration proceedings, which were ultimately set aside by the High Court. The plaintiff then filed a suit for compensation for breach of contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation. It found that Art. 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which provides a residual period of limitation of six years, applied to the case. The court also held that the time taken for the arbitration proceedings could be excluded under S. 14(1) of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in prosecuting a civil proceeding in good faith. The court further held that S. 37(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which provides for the exclusion of time spent in arbitration proceedings from the period of limitation, applied to the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation. 2. Whether Art. 115 or Art. 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applies to the case. 3. Whether the time taken for arbitration proceedings can be excluded under S. 14(1) of the Limitation Act. 4. Whether S. 37(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, applies to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation because Art. 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which provides a residual period of limitation of six years, applied to the case. 2. The court held that S. 14(1) of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in prosecuting a civil proceeding in good faith, applied to the case. 3. The court held that S. 37(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which provides for the exclusion of time spent in arbitration proceedings from the period of limitation, applied to the case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and held that the suit was not barred by limitation.
(RAMAPRASADA RAO J.)
1. The State of Madras represented by the District Collector of Ramanathapuram at Madurai, is the appellant. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit against the appellant-defendant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,845/= being the sum payable, according to the plaintiff, by the defendant in relation to services rendered and work done by the plaintiff as a contractor in the matter of the construction of a bridge on the highway at 10/5 mile from Madurai to Tondi. Under Ex. B.8, dated 25th February, 1956 a contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant in the matter of the construction of the various projects. This contract attracted the Madras Detailed Standard Specification Rules. The case of the plaintiff is that the site for construction of the aforesaid project was handed over to him only on 7th March 1956. According to the plaintiff he officers of the Engineering Department, who were in charge of the supervision work, took a hostile attitude against him from the very beginning Under Ex. A.6, 23rd May, 1956, the execution of the contract was stopped Under Ex. A.8 dated 21st June, 1956 the Divisional Engineer asked the plaintiff to resume work Under Ex. A.11 dated 11th October, 1956, the plaintiff was accused of being slow in the matter of execution of the work. The plaintiffs case was that there was sufficient reason for the slow progress of the work, as it was due to non-supply of essential materials to him for purposes of executing the work. Under Exs. A-15, A-17, A-18 and A-19, the plaintiff was asked to start work and expeditiously complete the same. Under Ex. A.24 the time for performance of the contract was extended till 30th September 1957. During the course of construction the plaintiff brought to the notice of the higher authorities under Ex. A.27 about the attitude of the Assistant Engineer in relation to the particular contract. The plaintiffs case is that he secured a copy of the contract (the agreement Ex. B-8) which included the Madras Detailed Standard Specification Rules also, only in April, 1956 and that too on a request made by him for that purpose, under Ex. A.29 Curiously enough the work was again stopped in April, 1957 and when the plaintiff protested, he was directed to complete the work within 15 days. Ultimately under Ex. A.36 dated 24th June, 1957 the contract was terminated. He appealed to the Divisional Engineer under Ex. A.38 and finally under Ex. A.52 dated 21st October, 1957 the plaintiffs appeal was rejected. In Ex. A.52, the Superintending Engineer, Highways as the appellate authority says that the request of the plaintiff for increased rates could not be entertained by the Department and when the contractor was asked to resume his work, he did not express his willingness to do so and it was in those circumstances, the plaintiffs appeal against the order of cancellation of the contract was rejected. According to the plaintiff the termination of the contract was illegal and he, therefore, filed an arbitration petition on 10th April 1958, before the Superintending Engineer, Madras, on 10th June, 1959 he was informed that the Superintending Engineer, Madras, was not the authority 10 arbitrate over the matters touching the contract and that the Superintending Engineer, Sivaganga, was the proper authority. The petitioner thereafter filed an arbitration claim before the Superintending Engineer, Sivaganga and also the Superintending Engineer, Tiruchi, and claimed moneys for work done under the contract and also included therein a claim for damages for premature termination of the contract, was illegal. From the records, it appears that the matter was once again taken up by the Superintending Engineer for arbitration by the Madras Division who under Ex. A.70 dated 29th May 1961 passed an award on the arbitration claim made by the petitioner as above before the various authorities already referred to. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the award, he
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
