GUPTA & CO Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned award which is dated 9.6.2016 has rejected the claims filed by the petitioner solely on the ground of limitation. Strangely, an application under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short "Limitation Act") was filed and not under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "1996 Act") as one would have ordinarily expected. But then, since Section 3 of Limitation Act does give a litigant the right to seek dismissal of an action on the ground of limitation even if it is not pleaded, I would not rest the decision in the matter solely on this basis.

(2.) Mr. Jain, who, appears for the petitioner, says that in terms of the Agreement dated 11.3.1986 (hereafter referred to as "Agreement"), the petitioner was required to construct flats at the subject site qua which the scheduled date for completion was fixed as 19.3.1987. Learned counsel, though, concedes that the work in respect of the flats was completed by the petitioner only on 21.8.1989, which is, according to him, the date uptil which extension was granted by the respondent/DDA.

(3.) Notably, the learned Arbitrator in the impugned award has returned certain findings of fact, which are contained in the following paragraphs of the award: