Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1837

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
G. Narendar, CJ
MS MAGO CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
ARBAP No. 24 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Applicant: Mr. Modassir H. Khan
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Sharma

The court clarified previous statements regarding final bill acceptance and arbitration invocation, emphasizing limitation considerations for disputes.

Headnote:(A) Correction Application - Modification of previous order - The Court corrected an erroneous recording regarding the acceptance of the final bill and clarified the invocation of arbitration clause concerning disputed amounts. (Para 9, 10)

(B) Limitation Act - The court addressed issues related to time limits and acceptance of final settlements, requiring further investigation by the Arbitrator. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
The correction application sought to amend previous misstatements regarding the acceptance of the final bill by the respondents and the implications of invoking the arbitration clause.

Findings of Court:
The submissions were modified to accurately reflect the payments made and the nature of the disputes regarding the final bill.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the limitation period begins to run in light of the final bill's acceptance and the invoking of arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that clarification of accepted amounts and withholding of payment on disputed claims must be undertaken by the Arbitrator, specifically addressing the impact on limitation periods.

Result: Correction Application stands disposed of.

SL. N o	D a t e	Of f i ce N o t e s, r e p o r t s, o r d e r s o r p r o ce e d i n g s o r d i r e ct i o n s a n d Re g i st r a r ’ s o r d e r w i t h Si g n a t u r e s	COURT’ S OR JUD GES’ S ORD ERS
	0 9 .0 7 .2 0 2 5		ARBAP No. 24 of 2024 H o n ' b l e G. N a r e n d a r , C.J.
			Mr. Modassir H. Khan, learned counsel for t he applicant . 2. Mr. Raj esh Sharm a, learned St anding Counsel for t he Union of I ndia. Co r r e ct i o n A p p l i ca t i o n ( M CC N o .0 3 o f 2 0 2 5 )
			3. Heard learned counsel for t he applicant and learned St anding Counsel for t he respondent s. 4. This applicat ion ( MCC No.03 of 2025) is preferred t o correct t he erroneous recording of fact in Paragraph No.4. 5. This Court , aft er hearing learned counsels and recording t he subm issions of learned counsels, had recorded in Paragraph No.4 as under: - “ 4. I t is fair ly adm it t ed by t he respondent s counsel t hat t he final bill has neit her been accept ed, nor has it been rej ect ed. By not ice dat ed 21.01.2023, t he applicant invoked Condit ion- 70 of t he GCC and sought for reference of disput ed for det erm inat ion by ar bit rat ion. Despit e t he sam e, t he respondent s have failed t o appoint an arbit rat or.” 6. I t is now subm it t ed t hat t he final bill was accept ed and only t he undisput ed am ount was

			paid, and t his is reflect ed by Annexure- 21. 7. On perusal of t he sam e, it is seen t hat t he paym ent m ade by t he respondent s has not been accept ed as a final set t lem ent . 8. I n t hat view, t he subm ission of learned counsels is placed on record. 9. The first sent ence of Paragraph No.4, i.e. “ it is fairly adm it t ed by t he respondent s’ counsel t hat t he final bill has neit her been accept ed, nor has it been rej ect ed” , is m odified and is direct ed t o be recorded as “ it is fairly subm it t ed by t he respondent s’ t hat undisput ed part of t he final bill
			has been accept ed and t he proport ionat e
			am ount has been paid and t hat t he invocat ion of
			arbit rat ion clause is in respect of t he disput ed
			am ount ” .
			10. Consequent ly, t he recording of t he second sent ence in Paragraph No.6, i.e. “ t he dat es, narrat ed above, clearly indicat e t hat t here is no rej ect ion of t he final bill and in absence of t he rej ect ion of t he final bill, t he quest ion t hat arises is whet her lim it at ion st art s running?” , is m odified and is direct ed t o be recorded as “ t he dat es, narrat ed above, clearly indicat e t hat t here
			is a rej ect ion t o t he ext ent of t he disput ed claim
			and t he rej ect ion having been post t he not ice
			invoking arbit rat ion clause, whet her paym ent s
			have any im pact under t he Lim it at ion Act , is
			required t o be gone int o by t he Arbit rat or.”

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

SupremeToday Portrait Ad