The limitation period for arbitration references under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam commences from the communication of the Dispute Board's decision, and the petitioner filed within this period.

ORDER :

Vivek Rusia, J.

This Arbitration Revision is filed under Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 by the petitioner being aggrieved by the final order dated 31.01.2017 whereby the Reference Case No. 35/2014 has been dismissed by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal on the ground of limitation.

Facts of the case in brief:

2. The respondent-Indore Municipal Corporation issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the work of “Supplying, Laying, Jointing, Testing and Commissioning of Raw Water Pumping Main and all allied work, Lot No. 2 – Raw Water Pumping Main from Intake Well to DWTP (Contract Package – IMC1 1Lot 2) {hereinafter referred to as the 'works contract'}. The petitioner participated in the tender process and on 26.06.2007, the petitioner's bid was accepted being the lowest bidder. On 31.07.2007, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent. Petitioner was given 18 months to complete the work starting from 31.07.2007 with the total cost of work Rs. 48,09,00,981.90/-. According to the petitioner, the work was completed on 25.05.2010 beyond the stipulated completion period of 18 months. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the parties in respect of the deduction of price escalation from running bills. Vide letter dated 18.10.2010, the petitioner protested the method of computation and deduction made from the running bills. Petitioner made a request for release of Rs. 64,86,000/-deducted by the respondent. On 03.03.2011, the dispute was referred to the Dispute Board constituted under Clause 20.2 of the General Conditions of Contract. Initially, on 07.04.2010, the dispute was limited to the extension of time but later on, all other disputes were included for adjudication before the Dispute Board. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, the Dispute Board ought to have decided the dispute within 84 days i.e. on or before 25.05.2011, but the disputes were decided on 12.09.2012 except the dispute referred on 03.03.2011 regarding price escalation from the value of work done to the extent of mobilization advance. According to the petitioner, the said dispute remained unadjudicated and inconclusive. On 26.03.2013, final bill of the petitioner was paid by the respondent withholding the amount of price escalation claimed by the petitioner. Petitioner contended that no intimation was made regarding final decision given by the Dispute Board. Petitioner sent a request dated 27.05.2013 to the Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation for amicable settlement to resolve the only pending issue in respect of the amount of price escalation accrued on the gross value of work done amounting to Rs. 64,86,000/-. As per the petitioner, intimation in respect of the final adjudication by the Dispute Board dated 08.10.2012 was communicated by the respondent through a letter dated 07.06.2013.

3. Thereafter, petitioner approached the M.P.Arbitration Tribunal on 10.01.2014 by way of a reference petition registered as Reference Case No. 35/2014 under Section 7-A and 17 of the M.P.Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam'). After issuance of notice, the respondent appeared and filed preliminary objections under Sections 7-A and 7-B of the Adhiniyam seeking dismissal of the reference as time-barred. Thereafter written statement was filed by the respondent and affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. As per the petitioner, at the time of final hearing, the learned Arbitration Tribunal decided the issue of preliminary objection and dismissed the reference as time-barred by relying on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajawat & Co. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2005 (4) MPLJ 16 and Manoharlal Arora vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2006 (1) MPJR 304. Hence, this revision against impugned order dated 31.01.2017.

4. Shri S.C.Bagadiya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision given by the