The arbitration tribunal must prioritize merits over procedural limitations when adjudicating disputes upon judicial remand, particularly in cases of admitted liabilities. Failure to do so constitutes a judicial impropriety.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA CAV ORDER

11 09-12-2025 This civil revision application is filed under Section 13 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act , 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 2008) for setting aside the awards passed by the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Patna, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by which the Tribunal has dismissed the Reference Case No. 96 of 2014 under Section 9 of the Act 2008, denying any relief to the petitioner and even imposing a cost of Rs 10,000/- to be paid to the respondent by the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner, being a registered proprietorship firm engaged in civil works within the State of Bihar, seeks a direction for the release of admitted dues totalling Rs. 2,86,750/-, along with 18% compound interest. The petitioner was duly allotted and executed seven specific contracts for the repair and widening of various roads, including the Barauni Railway Station approach and the Khagaria-Parihara-Bakhri road, during the financial years 1995-96 through 1999-2000. Accordingly, the works were completed strictly in accordance with specified norms and were subsequently measured and inspected by the competent authority. Crucially, upon a specific request, the Executive Engineer verified the relevant documents and, vide an enquiry report dated 11.12.2001, admitted the Petitioner’s claim, citing a paucity of funds as the sole reason for non-payment. Despite this admission of liability and the lapse of over a decade, the Respondents have failed to liquidate the outstanding dues.

4. Further, it is stated by the petitioner that the dispute arose between the parties in relation to said contract, the petitioner filed Reference case no. 96 of 2014 before the learned Tribunal under Section 9 of the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Act, 2008, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2015. Upon challenge, this Court vide order dated 05.07.2017 set aside the said dismissal and specifically remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits. Despite this explicit judicial direction, the Learned Tribunal, in passing the impugned award, failed to abide the order of this Court. Instead, the Tribunal proceeded on the erroneous presumption that the petitioner had suppressed the earlier order dated 15.05.2015. This finding is demonstrably perverse, as the earlier dismissal and the subsequent remand order by this Court were integral parts of the record before the Tribunal.

5. In light of the antecedent facts and the specific directions issued by this Court in the remand order, it was directed to the learned Tribunal to decide the present case on merits and not on the point of limitation. It is a settled canon of jurisprudence that the Law of Limitation is a statute of repose, peace, and justice, yet it remains fundamentally an adjective law. Procedural prescriptions are intended to facilitate the administration of justice, not to stifle it. The Tribunal appears to have lost sight of the cardinal principle that technicalities cannot be permitted to override the cause of substantial justice. As has been famously observed in Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar reported in (1975) 1 SCC 774 , “procedure is the handmaid of justice and not its mistress”. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice must prevail. To deny the petitioner an adjudication on merits, particularly when the delay was not attributable to any mala fides on their part, would be antithetical to t