The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation for filing counter claims in arbitration proceedings and the jurisdiction of the arbitrator when appointed with the intervention of the Court.

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated May 11, 1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which the order dated February 21, 1987 passed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh, making the award dated June 30, 1983 of the arbitrator a rule of the Court, was set aside.

2. On the application made by the Bhakra Beas Management Board (for short the Board) for adjudication of its claim for the recovery of Rs. 51,011/- on the plea that the Board had to incur extra expenditure to complete the unfinished construction work entrusted to M/s Sat Pal Singh Bhupinder Singh (for short the Contractors), Shri K.K.Agarwal, General Manager, Hydel, Punjab State Electricity Board, was appointed as the sole arbitrator under the orders of the Court. The Contractors (petitioner herein) preferred a counter claim for Rs. 9,170/-). After giving both the parties an opportunity to produce evidence in support of their respective claims the arbitrator rejected the claim of the respondent and directed the Board to pay the amount of Rs. 9,170/- vide award dated June 30, 1983. Thereafter, the award was filed in the Court on January 18, 1984. Sub Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh, issued notices to both the parties. An unstamped objection petition under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed by the Board with the prayer for setting aside the award of the Arbitrator on the ground that the counter claim made by the Contractors was barred by limitation and about which no reference was made by the Court and, as such, the counter claim of the Contractors could not be entertained by the Arbitrator. The Sub Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh, decided the issue with regard to the time-barred counter claim made by the Contractors in favour of the Board. However, award of the Arbitrator was made a rule of the Court on the grounds that the objection petition filed by the Board was unstamped and was barred by limitation. The appeal filed by the Board was, however, allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside. Resultantly, the objection petition of the Board was allowed and the award dated June 30, 1983 of the Arbitrator was set aside. It is against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, that the present revision petition has been filed.

3. It has been contended by Mr. Gopi Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Board had clear knowledge about the filing of the award in the Court in January 1984 as a copy of award was forwarded by the Arbitrator to each of the parties at the time of filing the award in the Court in the month of January 1984. Thus, according to him, the period of limitation for filing the objection petition would commence from the date of knowledge of the respondent and, on this account it has been contended by the counsel that the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, has erred in reversing the order of the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Chandigarh, making the award a rule of the Court. Further it has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that it is for the arbitrator to consider the question of limitation and the Court cannot interfere in the award given by the Arbitrator. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Union of India v. Manchanda Brothers and Anr., A.I.R. 1979 Punjab and Haryana 255; The Jullundur Ex-Servicemen Motor Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. The General Assurance Society Ltd., Calcutta and Anr., (1978)80 P.L.R. 465; and N. Chellappan v. Secretary, Kerata State Electricity Board and Anr., A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 230.

4. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on going through the case file, I am of the view that contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not carry any weight and deserve to be rejected.

5. Undisputedly, the Court had appointed Shri K.K. Aggarwal as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the claim of Rs. 51,011/- made by the Board from t