SINDH CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT M/s. Sindh Construction Company, made an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act with a prayer that the opposite party, namely, the Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway he directed to appoint an arbitrator as provided in Clause 64 of the general conditions of the agreement under which the Company had carried on some work for the Union of India. The application under Section 8 was rejected by the Civil Judge, Mirzapur, inter alia on the ground that it had not been presented within the period of limitation.

(2.) THE case of the applicant was that there was no period of limitation governing such applications so that it could be presented at any time. THE Union of India, on the contrary, took the plea that the period of limitation for such applications was provided for in Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and inasmuch as the applicant had not made the application within that period, he could not be permitted to seek any direction from the Court in the matter of appointment of arbitrator. THE contention on behalf of the Union of India was accepted by the Court below.

(3.) UNDER Article 137, an application, for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the III Division of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, can be made within three years of the date when the right to apply accrues. In the present case, the Union of India finally rejected the claim made by the applicants through a letter dated Dec. 23, 1969 sent by it to the applicant through registered A/d post. This letter said that as the applicant had already given a clear no claim certificate, if extinguished its right to agitate and that arbitration could, therefore, not be allowed as already explained to the applicant. The applicant has brought on record a letter dated January 15, 1976 which it sent to the Chairman of the Railway Board reiterating its claim Between December, 1969 and January 15, 1976, it appears that the applicant kept silent about its claim. It took the applicant several years to re-iterate the claim through the letter of January 15. 1976. The applicant let the period of limitation available to it for making an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act slide by.