The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of limitation laws and the categorization of cases as dead wood in determining the eligibility for appointment of an arbitrator.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant application has been preferred by the applicant under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case that applicant is a registered firm with the respondents and secured work at Air Force Station, Maharajpur (under the control of Chief Engineer, Air Force, Allahabad) in the month of August, 2006. Contract bearing CA No.CE(AF)/ALD/MHR/01 OF 2006-07 dated 18-08-2006 was awarded to the applicant for PROVN OF CERTAIN ACCN AND ALLIED SERVICES AT AF STN MAHARAJPUR. Work executed by the applicant was governed by the General Condition of Contract known as Indian Army Forms Work 2249 (hereinafter referred to as 'IAFW 2249'). Clause 70 of IAFW 2249 refers Arbitration.

3. As submitted, applicant successfully completed the awarded work on 21-10-2011 but in spite of successfully completing the work, respondents did not make payment of final bill to the applicant which was due w.e.f. 20-04-2012 i.e. six months after the date of completion of work in terms of condition of condition No.65 of General Condition of IAFW 2249. Being disgruntled, on 20-05-2015 (Annexure A/4) applicant issued final notice to invoke condition No.70 of IAFW 2249 for going into arbitration but same was replied vide letter dated 11-06- 2015 (Annexure A/5) in which it has been intimated to the applicant that final bill in respect of above work is held up for want of signature of applicant on recovery statement of labour welfare cess, therefore, he was requested to do the formalities. It further appears that vide letter dated 22-08-2015 applicant applied to the respondents and raised its objection about the letter sent by the respondents on 11-06-2015, 23- 06-2015 and 30-06-2015.

4. It appears that thereafter nothing concrete held and in July 2017 said outstanding of Rs.1533/- as labour welfare cess was received by the respondents and Chief Engineer informed the Engineer in chief that contractor has signed final bill without any reservations and payment was made based upon scrutiny by the Audit Authority. Thereafter, on 4th October, 2019 this application has been preferred for appointment of arbitrator.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in the matter of Duro Felguera S.A. Vs. Gangavaram Port Ld. (2017) 9 SCC 729, Mayavati Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman, (2019) 8 SCC 714, Perkins Eastman Architects Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. AIR 2020 SC 59 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another Vs. Nortel Networks India Private Limited, (2021) 5 SCC 738 and sought appointment of arbitrator.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions and submitted that as per the contract, applicant completed the work on 21- 10-2011 but after two years i.e. on 21-08-2013, applicant submitted final bill vide Annexure R/1. On scrutiny/audit check, certain statutory recoveries as such; Commercial Tax of Rs.78/-, recovery on account of Suretendent of Technical Examiner (STE Observation) Rs.4000/- and labour welfare cess Rs.4,16,515/- as per the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 was made by the Controller of Defence Account (CDA). After due discussion with audit department Rs.1553/- was to be paid by the contractor to the department, therefore, letter dated 11-06-2015 Annexure R/2 to sign the recovery bills were issued to the applicant. Incidentally, applicant put his signature on recovery bills without any protest, without any fear and pressure.

7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that vide letter dated 20-05-2015, applicant requested for appointment of arbitrator by the department whereas present application has been preferred on 04-10-2019 therefore, application suffers from delay and laches because it is beyond the period of limitation which is 3 years as per Section 43 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with article 137 of the