ALEKHA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of Arbitrator to decide the claim of the petitioner as enumerated in Schedule -A of the petition.

(2.) THE petitioner had undertaken the work of 'Construction of extension to S.C.S. College at Puri' as per the Agreement No. 31 -F2 of 1978 -79. The petitioner has contended that the work could not be completed within the stipulated date fixed in the Agreement due to various hindrances caused by the opposite parties and appreciating the various difficulties, opposite party No. 4 had not taken any penal action against the petitioner under Clause 2 of the Agreement. It is further stated that though the petitioner had requested opposite party No. 4 for extension of time to complete the work, nothing was communicated to the petitioner. It is further claimed that the petitioner completed the work, but the work had not been measured as per rules and payment had not been made. Ultimately, the petitioner issued letter dated 8.2.1999 and no response having been received, the present petition has been filed under the new Act invoking the arbitration clause.

(3.) IT appears from the notice issued by the petitioner himself as per Annexure -3 that the Junior Engineer, Puri, by his letter No. 192 dated 1.1.1985 had intimated the petitioner that the final bill for the work had been prepared and final measurement had been taken in presence of the Contractor. It is thus, evident that the cause of action, for the petitioner had arisen long back in the year 1985. The petitioner claims that he had approached the authority on several occasions. Except the bare assertion which has been denied, no other correspondence has been produced. It appears that for over a decade, the petitioner had kept quiet and issued a notice only in February, 1999. In the above back -ground, the question arises as to whether the claim is barred by limitation and should not be referred to an Arbitrator.