Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Tirtha Singh - Respondent
ARBA No. 27 of 2011
Decided On : 20-11-2023
ARBITRATION - ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 - Sections 34, 37 - The court discussed the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly Sections 34 and 37, which govern the setting aside of arbitral awards and the appeal process. The court emphasized the importance of the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically Article 137, which provides a three-year limitation for applications where no specific period is prescribed. The court interpreted the 'right to apply' as arising when a claim is asserted and denied, and highlighted that undue delays in invoking arbitration can bar claims. The court concluded that the respondent's claims were time-barred, leading to the decision to set aside the arbitral award.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, Tirtha Singh, entered into a contract for construction work that was to be completed within 12 months but took over five years. After delays and non-payment of the final bill, the respondent invoked arbitration nearly nine years after the work's completion. The arbitrator awarded the respondent various claims, which the appellant sought to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's claims were time-barred as they were not asserted within the three-year limitation period prescribed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court held that the respondent's delay in invoking arbitration and the lack of timely claims rendered the arbitral award invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the jurisdiction of the Sole Arbitrator is barred by expiry of limitation period as per the Limitation Act, 1963? 2. Whether the order of the District Judge warrants any interference keeping in mind the limitations of this court's powers under Section 37 of the A&C Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the right to apply for arbitration arises when a claim is asserted and denied, and that undue delays in asserting claims can lead to them being barred by limitation. The court emphasized the importance of timely action in arbitration proceedings to prevent stale claims.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the arbitral award was set aside, and the order of the District Judge was deemed unsustainable due to the claims being time-barred.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
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 (!) (!) .
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 be completed within a period of 12 months was completed only after five and half years.
4. Though the work was completed on 09.08.1988, it is alleged that the Appellant failed to pay the final bill to the Respondent and also, did not regularize the extension of time case for a very long time. The Extension case was ultimately regularized on 11.01.1991 i.e. 29 months after the date of actual completion.
5. However, as the final bill was not paid for a long period; the Respondent invoked the Arbitration clause on 02.12.1996 and the First Arbitrator was appointed on 28.05.1997 i.e. after a lapse of about 9 years from the date of the completion of the work.
6. Initially one B.K. Biswas was appointed as Arbitrator in May, 1997 to August, 1999, who conducted 5 hearings. Then, one A.K. Bhatnagar was appointed in March, 2000 up to July, 2002, who conducted 3 hearings and thereafter one Sri O.P. Gaddhyan was appointed as Arbitrator in the month of August, 2002 up to May, 2006, who also conducted 10 hearings and finally one Sri C. Vaswani was appointed as Arbitrator in the month of November, 2006 up to January, 2008 and conducted only 3 hearings, who passed the award hurriedly without affording the department any opportunity to put forth their defence.
7. The Arbitrator, who was in seisin over the case, passed the award allowing the claim of the Respondent under the following heads:
(a) Claim No. 2, i.e. Work Executed but Not Paid, for an amount of Rs. 25,753/-;
(b) Claim No.7, i.e. compensation for increased cost of material and labour, for an amount of Rs. 77,904/-
(c) Claim No.8, i.e. interest, @ 18% per annum,
(d) Claim No.13 awarded a sum of Rs. 2,28,000/-,
(e) Claim No.14 awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and refund of Rs. 14,428/- to the claimant towards counter claim.
8. In total, an amount of Rs. 11,00,108/- was awarded from 01.02.2008 till the date of payment and further interest @12% per annum.
9. To challenge the aforesaid award, the Appellant/Petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 wherein the District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, refused to set aside the award on the grounds that the Arbitrator has assigned sufficient reasons for rejecting the penal recovery of the cost of material and that awarded compensation for increased cost of material and labour was within his competency to allow the claim by taking into account the escalation in the price of material and cost of labour. However, the District Judge reduced the rate of interest from 18% to 12% per annum.
II. APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS
10. The counsel for the Appellant assailed the judgment of the learned District Judge mainly on the ground that the District Judge failed to appreciate that the period of limitation for issuing notice invoking arbitration not
The court affirmed that claims in arbitration must be asserted within the limitation period, and undue delays in invoking arbitration can render claims invalid.
Claims in arbitration must adhere to statutory limitation periods; failure to comply renders them non-maintainable, emphasizing the strict nature of limitation under arbitration law.
The statutory limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is inflexible, and applications filed beyond this period cannot be entertained.
The limitation period for an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be extended beyond specified timelines, maintaining strict adherence to legal provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings and the significance of acknowledging claims to extend the period of limitat....
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
