VISHRAM VARU AND CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dtd. 19/3/2021 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Arbitration Petition No. 748/2019, by which the High Court has dismissed the said application under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the '1996 Act'), preferred by the appellant herein, the original applicant has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) That the appellant herein was issued work order in the year 1982. That the work was executed in the year 1986. According to the appellant herein, he executed excess quantity of work beyond the schedule quantity of work to be done. Therefore, he was entitled to the additional amount for the excess quantity of work done. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that a lot of correspondence was made by the appellant, however, the amount due and payable with respect to the excess quantity of work done was not paid. The appellant through letter dtd. 31/5/2018 requested the General Manager of South Eastern Railway to release the amount due or refer the dispute to the arbitrator under clauses 63 & 64 of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) under the 1996 Act, however, no action was taken on the said letter. Thereafter vide letter/communication dtd. 22/10/2018, again the same request was made to the General Manager, South Eastern Railway either to pay the amount which was overdue or refer the dispute to the arbitrator, which was repeated vide communications dtd. 11/1/2019 and 11/3/2019. According to the appellant, thereafter the appellant sent the Statement of Claim which was payable to him as per the work order dtd. 7/4/1982 issued by the railway authorities, which was executed up to 11/5/1986 and the work order dtd. 15/1/1984, which was executed up to 26/8/1985. According to him, as per the statement of claim, the total amount due and payable was Rs.1,19,46,297.00.

(3.) Shri Pijush K. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the High Court has materially erred in dismissing the arbitration petition under Sec. 11(6) of the 1996 Act on the ground of limitation.