JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in Arbitration O.P. No.153 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District dated 30.03.2012.)

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act challenging the order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore in Arbitration OP No.153 of 2010 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allowing the application filed by the respondent and setting aside the Arbitral Award dated 30.10.2009 passed in favour of the appellant against the respondent.

2. The respondent was awarded a contract by the appellant for the retrieval and removal of Un–Burnt Lignite (for short UBL) from 3 Bunds of Thermal Station – I for a total contract value of Rs.2,25,55,556.40

3. According to the appellant, the respondent committed breach of contract. The claimant referred the dispute to Arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration clause contained in the contract and sought recovery of a sum of Rs.1,52,95,000/– together with interest at 12% p.a. from the respondent.

4. The Arbitral Tribunal passed an Arbitral award on 30.10.2009 directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.88,50,000/– to the appellant along with interest at 9% per annum with effect from the date of claim viz., 09.06.2007.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Principal District Court at Cuddalore in Arbitration OP No.153 of 2010 on the ground that the claim made by the appellant before the sole Arbitrator is barred by law of limitation apart from raising other grounds.

6. By order dated 30.03.2012 in Arbitration OP No.153 of 2010, the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore allowed Arbitration OP No.153 of 2010 in favour of the respondent and set aside the Arbitral Award dated 30.10.2009 passed in favour of the appellant.

7. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2012 passed in Arbitration OP No.153 of 2010, this appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by the respondent in Arbitration OP No.153 of 2010.

8. Heard Mr.N.Nithianandam, learned counsel for the appellant. Despite service of notice on the respondent and their name having been printed in the cause list, today, there is no representation on their side.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the order dated 30.04.2004 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1808 of 2002 and would submit that only pursuant to that order, the arbitration was initiated by the appellant against the respondent for the recovery of the value of the stocks removed from the appellant premises by the respondent for which payments were not made. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the order dated 30.04.2004 passed by the Division Bench referred to supra is in the nature of a decree and therefore, the claim filed by the appellant before the Arbitral Tribunal on 14.08.2007 is well within the period of limitation though the order was passed by the Division Bench on 30.04.2004 itself.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant also drew the attention of this Court to the letters dated 07.08.2004, 01.12.2004, 09.08.2005, 24.11.2005 and 23.04.2007 sent by the appellant to the respondent demanding payment of the outstanding dues and submitted that since the respondent has not responded to those letters of demand, it amounts to admission of liability and therefore, according to him, the claim filed before the sole Arbitrator by the appellant on 14.08.2007 is well within the period of limitation.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant also drew the attention of this Court to the reply dated 26.07.2004 sent by the respondent and would submit that the learned Principal District Judge under the impugned order faile