The period pursued in Writ or Contempt proceedings cannot be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for an arbitration reference if the proceedings do not relate to the same matter in issue and the dismissal of the Writ was not due to a defect in court jurisdiction.

ORDER

Per: Justice Pranay Verma:

1. This revision under Section 19 of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Adhiniyam, 1983’) has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal in M.J.C. No.1/2021 whereby it has rejected the application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act,1963 read with Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, 1983 preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the reference petition. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the Arbitration Tribunal whereby its reference petition has been dismissed as barred by time.

2. As per the petitioner it is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Respondent No.1 had invited tenders between the year 2004 to 2006. The bid of the petitioner was accepted and the work order was issued in its favour. The petitioner raised running bills from time to time which were paid by the respondents. After completion of the work, final bill was raised by petitioner but no amount was paid despite issuance of reminders in that regard. The petitioner hence preferred Writ Petition No.9996 of 2012 before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 25.04.2013 with a direction to the Deputy Director, Local Funds and Audit to either direct respondent No.1/ Indore Municipal Corporation to release the payment or to assign valid reasons for deduction of the amount. The payment was, however, not made to the petitioner, hence Contempt Petition No.778 of 2013 was preferred by it before this Court wherein by order dated 19.03.2014, the respondents were directed to comply the order passed in W.P. No.9996 of 2012 within four weeks. Despite the said order, payment was not made to the petitioner hence another Contempt Petition No.758 or 2014 was preferred by it on 15.09.2014. During pendency of that petition, the respondents filed their reply on 12.12.2014 stating that the order passed in the writ petition has been complied with and the claim of the petitioner has been settled on 16.09.2014 and details of deduction and payment were sent to it on 03.12.2014. An order of recovery was also passed against the petitioner on 21.04.2014. By order dated 20.04.2016, the contempt petition was disposed of observing that the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the respondents cannot be urged in a contempt petition.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred W.P. No.4457 of 2016 before this Court against the order dated 21.04.2014 and 03.12.2014 passed by the respondents. By order dated 15.05.2017 the petition was disposed of with observation that effective remedy for dispute resolution is the arbitration provided under the agreement. The petitioner, then invoked dispute resolution Clause No.17 of the agreement dated 15.10.2004 by its letter dated 18.12.2017 and proposed appointment of arbitrator on its part. No action was taken by the respondents hence the petitioner filed quantified claim before them on 03.08.2018. When the respondents did not take any action on the quantified claim, the petitioner filed reference petition on 06.02.2020 before the Arbitration Tribunal under section 7– A of the Adhiniyam, 1983. Along with the same, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for exclusion of time spent on the aforesaid proceedings. The Tribunal has dismissed the application by order dated 03.02.2023 and has thereafter dismissed the reference petition itself as barred by time by orde