GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Vs. SATHEESH CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question arises in this M. F. A. is as to whether the Arbitrator is duty bound to decide on reasons, the jurisdictional or maintainability aspects of the proceedings itself.

(2.) There was an agreement between the appellant and the respondent / claimant regarding the conduct of a work. According to the respondent, Clause.3 of the agreement contains an arbitration clause and the said clause also named the Arbitrator as "Chief Engineer, Arbitration". According to him, he was entitled to certain amounts. The claim was not acceded to by the 1st appellant. Therefore, he referred the dispute to the named arbitrator. The proceedings were contested by the 1st appellant raising a preliminary objection regarding limitation. According to the appellant, the final bill has been paid to the contractor in July 1984. The claim if any available to the contractor ought to have been raised for decision of the arbitrator within three years thereafter. S.37 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 makes applicable all the provisions contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 to the proceedings before the arbitrator. The claim raised by the contractor is a simple money claim. Therefore, the period of limitation was only three years. That three year period began to run from the date of payment or signing of the cheque. Proceedings were initiated before the arbitrator by filing a statement by the contractor and that statement is dated 27.10.1987. This is beyond three years period form signing of cheque leaf on 20.7.1984. Even if payment of cheque on 30.7.1984 is taken, the proceedings initiated stood barred by the law of limitation, the appellants contended. The arbitrator overruling this preliminary objection simply stating "preliminary objection raised by the respondent is overruled". A petition was filed by the appellants to set aside the award, under S.16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 raising certain objections including that relating to the limitation. The court below dismissed that petition as per the impugned judgment. It is in the above circumstances, this M. F. A. has been filed by the State.

(3.) It is contended by the Government Pleader that the question of limitation is not a matter arising out of the agreement. Therefore, it was incumbent on the arbitrator when such a preliminary objection is raised affecting the jurisdictional aspects itself, to give reasons while overruling the preliminary objections.