SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ori) 193

S. K. PANIGRAHI
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Tirtha Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. A. Sanganeria, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

  1. The court emphasized that claims in arbitration must be asserted within the prescribed limitation period. Undue delays in invoking arbitration can lead to claims becoming invalid, especially when the delay exceeds the statutory time limits (!) (!) .

  2. The applicable limitation period for filing applications under the arbitration process, where no specific period is prescribed, is three years from the date the right to apply accrues. The right to apply arises when a claim is asserted and denied, not merely when the work is completed or the claim is recognized (!) [p_49


JUDGMENT

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

This Appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'A&C Act') has been filed against the judgment dated 23.11.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Arbitration Petition No.103 o 2008 rejecting the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside the award dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on the ground that the judgment and award are illegal, bad in law due to nonapplication of mind, perverse and contrary to the settled position of law.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. Tirtha Singh (the 'Respondent"), the contractor, entered into Agreement No.64/EE/BCD-I/1982-83 for the construction of quarters in the Civil Aerodrome, Bhubaneswar, for which a tender was floated in the year 1982-83 at the estimated cost of Rs. 15,20,865/-.

3. The date of commencement of the work was 13.02.1983 and it ought to have been completed in 12 months i.e. 12.02.1984. The necessary documents were handed over to the contractor in time, but he could not complete the work, for which the time was extended up to 09.08.1988. Ergo, the work supposed to b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top