LAWS(P&H)-2011-10-89

BALAJI ASSOCIATES Vs. HSIIDC KUNDLI AND ANOTHER

Decided On October 13, 2011
Balaji Associates Appellant
V/S
Hsiidc Kundli And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act).

(2.) THE parties entered into an agreement on 18.6.2003 whereby the Respondent granted the contract of laying water supply lines and all the works contingent thereto in Phase IV, Industrial Estate, Kundli. As per the Petitioner, the Respondent has not supplied CI/DI pipes as per the terms of the contract which lead to delay in completion of the contract. Such delay has caused loss to the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.00 lacs. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has denied the assertions of the Petitioner.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Respondent has argued that the dispute has been raised by the Petitioner beyond six months, as per Clause 25A of the agreement, therefore, the application to seek appointment of an arbitrator is barred by limitation. The said argument is not tenable in view of the amendment in Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as amended vide Act No. 1 of 1997. This Court had the occasion to consider the effect of the amendment in Arbitration Case No. 37 of 2009 (The Hisar Model Town Azad Co -operative Labour and Construction Society Limited v. The State of Haryana and Ors., decided on 18.5.2011, wherein it was held that such restrictions in the agreement are not enforceable. In view of this fact, the dispute raised by the Petitioner cannot be said to be barred by limitation in view of Clause 25A of the agreement.