Compliance with dispute resolution timelines in contracts is mandatory, and failure to adhere renders arbitration petitions non-maintainable under specified legal frameworks.

ORDER :

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

This Arbitration Revision under Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short, ‘the Adhiniyam’) has been filed assailing order dated 09.02.2023 passed in Reference Case No.25/2009 by learned M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the revision filed before the Tribunal has been dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of limitation holding that the petitioner has not filed the petition in compliance with the provision of Section 7 -B(1)(b) of the Adhiniyam as he has failed to approach the final authority within the stipulated time as per the terms of clause 29 of the contract agreement and Section 7 -B(1)(a) of the Adhiniyam.

2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that the respondents awarded work contract in favour of the petitioner vide Agreement No. 42/2003- 04 for construction of I.R.Q.P. work in Km. 39 to 51 of NH-75 (Ext.) and work order was issued on 17.03.2004. The stipulated period for execution of the contract was seven months including rainy season., Accordingly, due date for completion of the work was 16.10.2004. However, the work was not completed even uptil 30.12.2005 despite of extension and prior to the extended date, vide letter dated 29.12.2005, the contract was rescinded by the respondents. According to the petitioner, vide letter dated 07.01.2006, a representation was submitted under clause-29 of the contract before the Superintending Engineer against rescission of the contract which was rejected without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner made the same request to Chief Engineer seeking his decision, who in turn, returned the representation directing to submit the same before the Superintending Engineer. In compliance, the petitioner had put up his case before the Superintending Engineer on 22.03.2006. Again, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 05.05.2006 to the Chief Engineer and thereafter submitted quantified claim before the Superintending Engineer on 28.07.2008 who did not decide the same, then the petitioner vide letter dated 04.12.2008 referred its claim to the Chief Engineer who also did not decide the same and it remained pending. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Reference Petition No.25/2009 before the Tribunal.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondents have filed a written reply stating therein that on account of non-execution of the contract as per the terms of the contract, the contract was rescinded after giving notice to the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the rescission order is illegal. It is also stated that the petitioner, during the stipulated period, never achieved the proportionate progress of work at any point of time and on the request of the petitioner, time was extended twice i.e. till 31.05.2005 and 30.12.2005 and at the time of last extension, warning was given that no further extension would be granted and this extension was given reserving the right to recover the liquidated damages. It is further stated that the allegation regarding non-payment is also incorrect and the department was not under obligation to ensure material by way of assisting or facilitating for getting new lease for mining and there were no instructions to stop the work and for waiting for further instructions on account of work carried out at U.P. Irrigation Canal and Bansagar Sihawal Canal. It was submitted that it cann