DYNANESHWAR BHIKU DHARGALKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal arises from Order dated 19th April 1997 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 110/96/b by civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji. By the impugned order the trial court has rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 20 of the Arbitration act 1940, hereinafter called as 'the old Act', on the ground that the application is barred by limitation as well as the appellant has failed to place on record the agreement or duly certified copy thereof as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter called as 'the new Act'.

(2.) THE facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the appellant was awarded the work of blacktopping of the road from hutatma Smarak to Chichonimanas in Village panchayat Dhargal Pednem Taluka by Order dated 3rd April 1991. The work was required to be completed by llth April 1992. However, for one reason or other the same could not be completed till April 1993 and it was completed on 30th April 1993. According to the appellant the final bill in respect of the work done by him is yet to be prepared. Meanwhile the appellant by his letter dated 26th June 1995 preferred certain claims and consequently demanded the payment of certain amounts from the respondents in relation to the work done by the appellant. Further by a letter dated 21st July 1995 the appellant called upon the respondent to appoint the sole arbitrator in view of the failure on the part of the Executive Engineer to pay the amount claimed by the appellant by his letter dated 26th June 1995. According to the appellant, the respondent having failed to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated period, the appellant filed the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference of the disputes to an Arbitrator. The said application was filed some time in June 1996. The respondent herein objected to the said application being not maintainable including the objection regarding the applicaiton being barred by the law of limitation.

(3.) WHILE assailing the impugned order, shri S. G. Desai, the learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the trial court ought to have considered that the arbitration proceedings in respect of the 'dispute raised by the appellant had already commenced on the date when the new Act came into force and, therefore, considering the provisions contained in the new Act the proceedings in the instant matter are governed by the provisions of the old Act and, therefore, there was no need for the appellant to file the original arbitration agreement or any certified copy thereof, which is otherwise required under the new Act. As regards the issue of limitation, the learned advocate submitted that there was no question of the application being barred by the law of limitation, unless the final bill was issued by the respondent besides, the fact that the trial court has not given any reasons for arriving at the finding that the application is barred by the law of limitation. He placed reliance in the decision of the apex court in the matter of major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi v. Delhi development Authority.