The main legal point established in the judgment is that adherence to the limitation period as per the agreement and relevant statute is crucial for maintaining the maintainability of a claim before the Arbitration Tribunal.

S.S. Jha, J.

1. These two revisions are disposed of by this common order. Civil Revision No. 1193/1998 is filed by the contractor challenging the award passed by the M. P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, Respondents-State has also preferred Civil Revision No. 51/99 challenging the same award passed by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal.

2. Facts of the case are that petitioner M/s Rajawat and Company has preferred a claim and raised a dispute before the Arbitration Tribunal. Petitioner claimed that he was required to execute the balance work which was not completed by the original contractor. Measurements of the work carried out by the previous contractor was not finalised by the respondents. The petitioner was not given any instruction pertaining to the work required to be executed by him. Petitioner claimed that immediately after the work order was issued and he started the work, execution of the work was delayed on account of non-supply of the copy of the agreement, drawing, designs specifications and non-finalisation of the work done by the previous contractor. Layout of the administrative block was delayed and after completion of foundation, respondents had issued instructions to stop the work. In October, 1990, petitioner was directed to complete 15% work and 85% work was withdrawn. Petitioner submitted a claim of Rs. 12,750/- against the expenditure incurred for arranging the water supply and electrical connections. Rs. 24650/- claim for carrying out preliminary work such as hutments etc., Rs. 72,760 against idle wages paid by the petitioner, Rs. 11, 350/- for bringing material on the site and has not been paid as final bill, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards overhead expenses and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of profits. He claimed total sum of Rs. 3,41,510/-.

3. Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the claim submitted by the petitioner is not maintainable. Respondents-State submitted that under Clause 29 of the agreement, in the event of dispute between the parties regarding designs, drawings and specifications etc., dispute should be referred to the Superintending Engineer within thirty days of the dispute and the Superintending Engineer is required to decide the dispute within sixty days and, the party not satisfied by the decision of Superintending Engineer, can file appeal before Chief Engineer within thirty days from the decision and the decision of the Chief Engineer shall be final in the matter and after the orders are passed by the Chief Engineer then only dispute can be referred to the Tribunal. Petitioner has not submitted dispute before the Superintending Engineer within the specified time. Dispute was submitted by the petitioner to the Superintending Engineer on 18-5-1991 which was rejected by the Superintending Engineer on 22-7-1994. But no appeal has been preferred before the Chief Engineer as required within thirty days. Since the contractor has not preferred an appeal under Clause 29 of the agreement, therefore, Claim petition before the Arbitration Tribunal is not maintainable. Petitioner has not exhausted the remedy available to him and the claim as filed is premature.

4. First question involved in the case is whether claim as filed is within limitation. As per Clause 29 of the agreement, appeal was required to be submitted within thirty days before the Superintending Engineer and the Superintending Engineer was required to decide the appeal within sixty days. Thereafter, reference can be filed. Petitioner has not submitted an appeal within thirty days and the dispute was submitted before Superintending Engineer on 18-5-1991 which was rejected by the Superintending Engineer on 22-7-1994. Under Clause 29 of the agreement, Superintending Engineer was required to decide the dispute within sixty days. Claimant should not have waited beyond the period of sixty days the date of decision on 22-7-1994. The cause of action accrued to him on 18-11-1991. The appeal preferred by the contractor was deemed to be rejecte