The court emphasized that limitation is a jurisdictional issue in arbitration, and mere disagreement with findings does not warrant interference under supervisory jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been instituted by M/s Jindal Stainless Steel Limited @ M/s Jindal Stainless Limited, calling into question a chain of arbitral and post-arbitral proceedings culminating in the dismissal of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The challenge is directed against the judgment dated 26.07.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda, Bhubaneswar in Arb. Appeal No.16 of 2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, affirming both the arbitral award dated 31.01.2021 and the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The factual backdrop dates back to August, 2005, when the petitioner floated a tender for the supply, fabrication, erection, testing and commissioning of an L.P. piping system and storage tanks for the 2×125 MW CPP Project at Duburi, Odisha. The opposite party participated in the tender process and was selected as the lowest bidder. A letter of intent was issued on 12.12.2005, followed by a purchase order dated 29.8.2006. The work contract stipulated specific milestones, requiring commissioning of the first unit within eight months and the second unit within eleven months from the date of the letter of intent.

3. It is the admitted position that the opposite party did not complete the work within the stipulated time, despite extensions having been granted up to 30.9.2007. On 15.3.2008, the opposite party abandoned the work, compelling the petitioner to engage a third-party contractor, namely M/s Shakti Engineering, on 17.4.2008 for execution of the remaining work. These events are not in dispute between the parties.

4. On 21.8.2008, the opposite party issued a letter demanding release of the final bill, which has been consistently described as the “first demand.” The said demand was followed by a notice dated 7.1.2009 seeking payment against the final bills submitted on 21.8.2008.

5. Thereafter, on 25.4.2012, the opposite party once again issued a demand notice seeking release of outstanding dues.

6. The petitioner, by its letter dated 27.7.2012, denied the claim of the opposite party on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Subsequently, a legal notice dated 13.2.2013 was issued by the opposite party.

7. On 18.4.2013, the opposite party invoked arbitration by issuing a letter of reference under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, invoking Clause 11 of the purchase order.

8. Arbitration Proceeding No.1 of 2013 culminated in an award dated 31.1.2021. By a majority view, the Arbitral Tribunal held that the claims were not barred by limitation and allowed the claims, including an additional claim inserted during the arbitral proceedings. A dissenting opinion, however, held that the claims were time-barred, having arisen from the first demand dated 21.8.2008.

9. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the learned Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar, registered as Arb.(P) No.23 of 2021. By order dated 6.8.2024, the Commercial Court dismissed the application. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal under Section 13 of t