SINGHAL Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By consent heard forthwith.

(2.) The main question of law which arise in this petition is as under : does the Chief Justice or his designate under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, have the jurisdiction to dismiss an application for constitution of an arbitral tribunal on the ground that it is barred by limitation or not made within a reasonable time. The relevant provisions of section 11, read as under :

(3.) A few facts may be set out: the petitioner is a registered partnership firm of which petitioner No. 2 is the partner. On or about 21-7-1994 respondent No. 1 invited tender for the work of reinstatement of trenches and allied work in the year 1995-96. It is the petitioner's case that they had carried out the work of re-instatement for trenches and allied work from 1-1-1995 to 22-2-1999 at various places. From time to time, petitioners submitted their bills for the work carried out to the concerned Sub divisional Engineer, Cable Construction at the respective places where the work had been carried out. Time and again the Petitioners demanded for payment and for which bills had been submitted to the respective area-wise Engineers. Various letters have been written by the petitioners to the Sub-Divisional Engineer. By letter of 27-8-1997, addressed to respondent No. 4, the petitioner's had requested for payment of the outstanding bill and had submitted supplementary bill. It is the petitioner's case that the supplementary bills were passed in the concerned department. The bills were put up by the Accounts Officer to the Higher authorities and were approved. However, in spite of the approval by the Finance department and by the competent authority, the amounts are not paid. Certain guidelines were issued which have been fulfilled. The Accounts Officer promised to pay the amounts on or before March, 1996. But the same till date has not been paid. On the contrary the Accounts Officer has deducted amounts wherein the petitioners are to receive higher amount as per the department guidelines. The petitioner's have been put to unwarranted financial loss. Reference is then made to the correspondence exchanged from time to time and letter dated 11-6-2001 by the Chief Manager informing the Petitioner's that the matter has been examined from the old records, and that they would hear in due course. Petitioner by letter of 21-4-2002 addressed to Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 once again demanded the payment and requested to appoint an arbitrator. Relevant portion of the letter reads as under: