CHIEF ENGINEER HIGHWAY Vs. ROMAN TARMAT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals arise out of a common judgment and order of November 24, 2020 passed on petitions challenging an arbitral award of December 28, 2019. The appellants' challenge to the arbitral award on the ground of the claim being barred by limitation has been repelled. On the first respondent contractor's challenge to the counter-claim filed in the arbitral reference by the appellants herein, the counter-claim has been rejected.

(2.) The short question raised in seeking to dislodge the contractor's claim is that the termination of the two contracts was not questioned within the time referred to in a clause in the contract; and, as a consequence whereof, the contractor is deemed to have accepted the termination of the two contracts. The appellants submit that though such ground was squarely taken in course of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and even urged in course of the hearing before the arbitration court, it is apparent from the order impugned that the arbitration court misconstrued the submission and did not deal with such aspect of the matter in the judgment and order impugned dated November 24, 2020.

(3.) The issues involved in the two appeals are identical. The appellants awarded similar contracts in favour of the respondent contractor for constructing two stretches of a road for the first ten kilometer and from the tenth kilometer to the 17th kilometer. Both contracts required the work to be completed within a certain period of time and the work to be taken up on a continuous basis.