JUDGMENT

S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) APPLICATION of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 31. 1. 2005 passed by the High Court of karnataka at Bangalore in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 717 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the objection filed by the appellant herein under Section 34 of the Act was held to be barred by limitation.

( 3 ) BEREFT of all unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is as under : the parties hereto entered into a contract of construction of an indoor stadium on or about 21. 5. 1993. The said contract contained a clause pertaining to resolution of dispute between the parties by the superintending Engineer, PWD, Gulbarga contained in clause 30 of the contract, which reads as under :

"the decision of the Superintending Engineer of the Gulbarga Circle for the time being shall be final, conclusive, and binding on all parties to the contract upon all questions relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or material used on the work, or as to any other question, claim, right, matter, or thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of, or relating to the contract, esigns, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or those conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution, or, failure to execute the same, whether arising during the progress of the work, or after the completion or abandonment thereof in case of dispute arising between the contractor and Gulbarga university. "

The parties filed their claims and counter claims before the said authority. A purported award was passed in terms thereof on or about 30. 7. 1999. However, a copy thereof was not supplied to the respondent. Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the said authority to supply it a copy of the said award. The writ petition was filed on 17. 2. 2000. It was allowed by an order dated 13. 6. 2000 whereby and whereunder the Superintending Engineer was directed to furnish a copy of his decision to the respondent. Pursuant thereto, the same was furnished on 19. 8. 2000. Treating the said award to be one made under the Act as also on the premise that no objection thereto was filed by the appellants in the court of Principal Civil Judge within the period prescribed for questioning the validity thereof and, thus, became an executable decree, an execution application was filed on or about 18. 9. 2000. An objection thereto was filed by the appellant herein purported to be under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said objection was dismissed. A revision Application was filed thereagainst and by a judgment and order dated 30. 11. 2001, it was held by the High Court that the said clause does not constitute an arbitration agreement. A special leave petition was filed thereagainst by the respondent and in a decision of Three Judge Bench of this Court, since reported in mallikarjun v. Gulbarga University [ (2004) 1 SCC 372], the decision of the High Court was reversed holding that 'clause 30' constituted an arbitration agreement. This Court, in support of the said decision, noticed an earlier decision of this Court in Bharat Bhushan Bansal v. U. P. Small Industries Corporation Limited [ (1999) 2 SCC 166], stating :"15. A bare comparison of clause 30 of the contract agreement involved in the present matter and clauses 23 and 24 involved in bharat Bhushan Bansal case would show that they are not identical. Whereas clause 30 of the agreement in question provides for resolution of the dispute arising out of the contract by persons named therein; in terms of clause 24, there was no question of decision by a named person in the dispute raised by the par