The court clarified that the provisions of the old Arbitration Act, 1940 did not apply to arbitral proceedings that commenced after the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 came into force, and emphasized the importance of timely filing objections under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Dutta for the appellant. None present for the respondents. Facts of the case may be summarized thus:-

Pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender, issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Agartala Division No. 2 (appellant herein), for the execution of works namely, "RESECTIONING AND BLACK TOPPING OF AGARTALA-SIMNAROAD FROM 5.40 K.M. TO 13.4 K.M./PORTION FROM 5.40 K.M. TO 800 K.M. (GR. NO. I)", the respondent-contractor, Sri Ranjit Lal Roy participated in the Tender process and in due course, an agreement was signed between the Executive Engineer on behalf of the State and the contractor, on 10.09.1992, for execution of the work. Certain dispute and difference cropped up between the parties in the course of execution of the work and the dispute was referred to the sole arbitrator namely, Sri P.K. Debnath, Addl. Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (R & B), Tripura and the sole arbitrator took up the proceeding on 29.07.1997. The arbitrator after hearing both side, formulated five issues namely:-

ISSUE NO. 1:- Whether the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,03,503/- which was paid less on purported ground of substandard work?

ISSUE NO. 2:- Whether the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 12,864/- which was kept withheld from the 2nd R.A. Bill without showing any reason?

ISSUE NO. 3:- Whether the claimant is entitled to get interest for held up payment as shown under para 6 (of the statement of Fact)?

ISSUE NO. 4:- Whether the claimant is entitled to get interest @ 21% P.a. for payment against dispute No. 1 and 2 above with effect from date of bills of payment/withheld till realization?

ISSUE NO. 5:- Whether the claimant is entitled to get cost of litigation as deemed fit and proper?

2. After hearing, the learned arbitrator made the following award:-

The award was signed by the arbitrator on 16th August, 1999.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Dutta that the Executive Engineer i.e. the appellant herein immediately after the award was made, filed an application under Section 30 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1940 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) for setting aside the award on specific ground, but, the learned Civil Judge did not entertain the petition and on the contrary, returned the copy of award to the Executive Engineer and other records to the sole arbitrator. The sole arbitrator informed the matter to the contractor and thereafter, remitted the records to the Court of learned District Judge, West Tripura.

It is further contended by learned counsel, Mr. Dutta that after receipt of the record, the District Judge informed both the parties and the appellant herein on receipt of the notice appeared before the District Judge and filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for setting aside the arbitral award on specific grounds, but the District Judge by impugned order dated 03.09.2001 in Case No. MISC. (ARB) 11 of 1999 rejected the objection filed by the Executive Engineer on the ground that it was not filed within the stipulated period of three months.

4. Challenging order dated 03.09.2001 passed by the District Judge, the appellant filed an application under Section 115 of the CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court on 11.01.2002 and the application was registered as CRP No. 01 of 2002.

5. By an order dated 18.02.2002, passed by this Court, on the prayer of learned counsel, Mr. Dutta for the petitioner/appellant, the revisional application so filed was treated as a statutory appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the appeal has now come for hearing.

6. Learned counsel, Mr. Dutta has submitted that the agreement was signed in the year, 1992-93 and the dispute cropped up between the parties before the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came into force and so the arbitral proceeding should have been dealt with as per the provisions prescribed in Arbitration Act