STATE OF M P Vs. NARMADA CONSTRUCTION CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act (In short the 'Act') is preferred against the order dt. 3.5.1985 passed by the District Judge, Nandla, whereby the application of the respondent-Contractor under Section 20 of the Act has been allowed and directions for filing of the agreement and appointment of the arbitrators have been issued.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant only raised objection to the arbitration on grounds of limitation based on arbitration clause 4.3.29 and clause 4.3.15 of the Contract.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent Contractor appearing on the other side in reply, submitted that even the question of limitation arising under the terms of the Contract is a matter arbitrable before the arbitrators and cannot be gone into in proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. Which are intended only to envoke the arbitration clause. Reliance is placed on behalf of the State on Union of India v. L.K. Ahuja and Company, 1988 AIR(SC) 1172 and Inder Singh v. Delhi Development Authority.,1988 AIR(SC) 1107 The Counsel for the contractor relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Continental Construction (P) Ltd, 1978 MPLJ 474