UNITY ENGINEERS Vs. ITPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The solitary legal objection to the award dated 28/01/1999 is that the arbitration proceedings were not maintainable as these were wholly barred by limita tion by virtue of clause 25 of the contract which provides for referring the disputes within 90 days from the intimation that the final bill is ready for payment. Remaining objections are as to the findings of facts given by the Arbitrator which are not enter- tainable as reappraisal of evidence or revaluation or the assessment of the material or evidence on the record does not come within the purview of the Court.

(2.) Recently the Supreme Court in Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr, (1999) 9 SCC 449 made the following observations as to the role of the Court the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to such findings of the Arbitrator :-

(3.) Though the objection raised by the respondent is partly of legal and partly of factual nature yet the fact remains that the respondent had been groping in the dark as to the final bill. The last 6th bill which according to the respondent is final bill was passed on 21/12/1990 still the 6th Running Bill was received by the petitioner on 18/03/1991 subject to final settlement. This itself shows that the limitation was to run when the entire accounts were settled or the respondent gave the notice that the bill was ready for final settlement. Though a letter dated 22/10/1990 was sent by the respondent wherein the respondent admitted that they have to pay balance payment after successful running of the plant but the respondent for the purpose of limitation considers t,he signatures of the claimant in' the Measurement Book made on 18/12/1990 as an intimation to the petitioner/claimant that the final bill is ready.