S S JAITLEY Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain disputes having arisen between the parties under Agreement No. 7/27/EE/HD XVI/DDA/84-85 the matter was referred for arbitration to Shri Suresh Mehta, Superintending Engineer (Arbitration)-l, D.D.A. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties made and published his award on 19th August, 1996. After the award was filed in Court notice of the filing of the same was given to the parties and the respondent-D.D.A. has filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award.

(2.) It is argued by Mr. Kapur on behalf of the Objector that the Arbitrator has not applied his mind to the matter in issue and has thus misconducted himself and the proceedings and the award is, therefore, liable to be set aside. It is also contended by him that the claims referred to the Arbitrator were barred by time and the Arbitrator has, therefore, illegally made and published his award against the respondent-DDA. In support of his contention that the claims were barred by time and consequently the Arbitrator could not award any amount to the claimant. Mr. Kapur has referred to the judgment reported as Panchu Gopal Base v. Board of Trustees for Port of Calcutta, 1993 (4) SCC 338 and Raj Kumar v. Official Receiver, Mis. Chiranji Lal Ram Chand, AIR 1996 SC 941 =l (1996) CLT 232 (SC).

(3.) It is-iot in dispute that the question as to whether the claims were barred by time was not raised before the Arbitrator. It is also not in dispute that the matter was referred to the Arbitrator without the intervention of the Court. Under Article 137 of the Limitation Act it is only in a case where a petition is filed in Court for reference of disputes to the Arbitrator that an objection could be raised that the petition was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for the purpose. The question that the claims were barred by the law of limitation was not urged before the Arbitrator either orally or by way of pleadings. In my view, therefore, the Objector cannot be permitted to raise the same in this Court.