SHANTI PRAKASH GOENKA Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the "Act") inter alia, praying that an arbitrator be appointed for adjudication of the disputes that have arisen between the parties.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent had entered into an agreement dated 25.10.2010 for construction of MTNL staff quarters at GH-17, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. It is also not in dispute that the said contract includes an arbitration clause which reads as under:-

(3.) The only objection raised by the respondent is that the invocation of the arbitration clause is beyond the period of limitation of 90 days. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the final bill was prepared on 15.03.2013 and the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause on 04.04.2015. She also drew the attention of the Court to the arbitration clause, which specifically provides that if the demand for arbitration in respect of any claim is not made within 90 days of receiving the intimation from the MTNL that the bill is ready for payment, the demand would be deemed [sic demand] to have been waived and barred.