AMAR ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short 'the Act of 1983'), the petitioner contractor has filed this revision questioning legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 17-03-2008 passed by the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur (for short 'the Arbitration Tribunal') in Reference Case No.112/2005, whereby the reference petition instituted by the petitioner herein has been rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation as provided in Section 7-B of the Act of 1983.

(2.) The petitioner preferred the reference petition under Section 7 of the Act of 1983 demanding 2,56,411/- towards refund of deposit money, refund of recovery etc. The said reference petition was admitted for hearing under Section 7-B of the Act of 1983 and thereafter after conclusion of hearing it was dismissed holding to be hopelessly barred by limitation.

(3.) Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contractor, would submit that the learned Arbitration Tribunal has committed grave legal error by dismissing the reference on the basis of limitation. He would further submit that Section 7-B of the Act of 1983 prescribes limitation for admission of the reference petition for which the dispute is firstly required to be referred for the decision of the final authority under the terms of the works contract upon accrual of the dispute and thereafter, one year from the date of communication of the decision of the final authority, the reference petition is to be filed before the Tribunal. He would also submit that in the instant case, the question of limitation was considered by the Tribunal on 27.10.2005 and the petition was admitted for hearing after having satisfied that the reference petition is within limitation. He would also submit that the learned Arbitration Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that in the works contract there is no concept of cause of action, here the question would be the cause of arbitration. He would also submit that cause of arbitration accrued from the date when the claimant first acquired either a right of action or a right to require that an arbitration should take place upon the dispute concerned. He would lastly submit that in the present case, the dispute was firstly referred to the Superintending Engineer and thereafter, the Chief Engineer and thereafter, within the period prescribed under Section 7-B (1) (b) of the Act, the reference petition was filed and the Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the reference petition as barred by limitation.