UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHAN LAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREFACE

(2.) FEW dates would be relevant. To find out the genesis of the controversy we look way back in 1992, when Union of India invited tender for construction of workshop building at Ichapur. After the consideration of the tenders submitted for the purpose, the authority accepted the offer of the respondent on January 29, 1993. The authority subsequently entrusted the job through work order issued on February 22, 1993. The contractor was supposed to complete the work within one year. After various extensions being given up to 1996, the work was completed belatedly, as per the record actual date of completion as agreed and acknowledged by the parties was February 26, 1996. The dispute arose as to the settlement of final bill. The authority paid the amount as according to them payable on March 31, 1997 that the contractor did not agree.

(3.) THE parties invoked the arbitration clause on July 16, 1997. The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice appointed a former Judge of this Court to act as Arbitrator vide order dated July 1, 1999 passed in an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Accordingly, the Arbitrator entered upon reference and ultimately published a reasoned award for Rs.18,28,774.00 along with future interest. The amount would include interest on the principal claim up to the date of the award. The Arbitrator published his award on February 16, 2001. The appellant authority did not accept the award. They decided to challenge the same. Here lies the twist. The authority approached the learned District Judge, Barasat under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996 as according to the authority the said Court was the "Principal Civil Court" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the said Act of 1996. The authority filed the application on May 14, 2001 as we find from page -90 of the application for stay. The respondent/claimant challenged the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge by filing an application under Section 42 of the said Act of 1996 inter alia contending, the High Court appointed the Arbitrator vide order dated July 1, 1999 in A.P. No. 331 of 1998, hence, the High Court was the "Principal Civil Court" within the meaning of Section 34 coupled with Section 42 of the said Act of 1996. Vide order dated April 29, 2003 the learned District Judge dismissed the application under Section 34 by observing, the said Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 in view of the provisions of Section 42. The authority accepted the said decision and approached this Court by filing a fresh petition under Section 34. Vide judgment and order dated October 18, 2012 the learned Single Judge dismissed the said application as not maintainable on the ground, the application was delayed. It would be profitable to quote few paragraphs of the said judgment and order and make it a part of this judgment: -