DELHI JAL BOARD Vs. RAJORA BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Delhi Jal Board (hereafter "DJB"), in this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015 (hereafter "Act"), questions the decision of a learned Single Judge, refusing to interdict an arbitral award (under Section 34) which had directed it to pay amounts to Rajora Builders (hereafter "Rajora"), for the services it rendered.

(2.) Djb had entered into a contract with Rajora for domestic sewage disposal. Owing to delays in the completion of work, an extension of time had been provided to Rajora up till 31st July, 200 The work of the underlying contract was completed on 24th December, 200 Thereafter, the final bill for gross value of Rs. 2,89,81,244.36, including 3 extra items was alleged to have been submitted by Rajora to DJB. Rajora vide letter dated 17th July, 2003 informed DJB that final bill had not been paid. Rajora's enquiry revealed that payment of the final bill was pending because of lack of approval of the competent authority for the extension of time, hence, the request for extension was made. On 17th July, 2003, Rajora had contacted DJB requesting extension of time for the work to be completed till the date of completion (i.e. 24th December, 2002). A copy of the final bill was also attached to the letter. Thereafter, on 23rd May, 2006, DJB granted Rajora's request for extension of time for work to be performed till 24th December, 2002 without any levy of compensation. However, escalation benefits were restricted only up to 11th March, 200 However, in spite of the grant of extension, the final bill was not settled. On 5th October, 2006, DJB sent a final bill to Rajora for acceptance and counter signature. However, it was not accepted by Rajora as amounts payable to it under various heads, were not included in that final bill. This was also noted by the Tribunal. Further, on 1st January, 2009, Rajora instituted arbitration proceedings for recovery of the amount owed to it.

(3.) In arbitration, DJB's written submissions urged a preliminary objection that Rajora's work was completed on or before 24th December, 2002. Accordingly, DJB argued that pursuant to the shorter limitation periods under Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereafter "Delhi Municipal Corporation Act") and Section 96 of the Delhi Water Board Act, 1998 (hereafter "Delhi Water Board Act") (six month time bar), Rajora's arbitral claim was time-barred. The DJB also contended that the claim was time-barred under the longer limitation period under Article 18 of the Limitation Act (three years). In response, Rajora's counsel argued that Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and Section 96 of the Delhi Water Board Act were inapplicable. Rajora submitted that DJB granted the extension of time only on 23rd May, 2006, and required it to accept and counter-sign a final bill prepared by DJB on 5th October, 2006. Accordingly, under the longer limitation period under Article 18 of the Limitation Act (three years), the claims are not time-barred Arbitral award