PRITAM LAL SHARMA Vs. HUDA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance to a Contract entered into between the parties containing a clause of raising a claim within a period of 180 days from the date of preparation of the final bill, a dispute arose which was referred to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator vide its Award dated 31.03.2005 held that HUDA entitled to claim the certain amounts of compensation. Aggrieved of the aforementioned Award, the Contractor filed the objections under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called 'the 1996 Act') and the same have been dismissed. In these circumstances, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Mr. Harkesh Manuja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant -Contractor, submits that the claim of the HUDA was beyond the terms and conditions of the Contract, the Arbitrator exceeded its jurisdiction in not referring to the same, thus, there is blatant/statutory violation of sub -Section 3 of Sec. 28 of the 1996 Act, which, envisages that in case the Award is against the terms and conditions of the Contract, then the same was liable to objected to, as per the provisions of Sec. 34 of the 1996 Act. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in 'National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sujir Ganesh Nayak and Company", : 1997 AIR (SC) 2049 and "M/s. P. Manohar Reddy and Bros. Vs. Maharashtra Krishna Valley Dev. Corp. and others", : 2009 AIR (SC) 1776, to contend that in case, the claim is not lodged strictly as per the terms and conditions of the Contract Act, the claim ex facie was barred by law of limitation, and therefore, HUDA cannot claim the benefit of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the Award as well as the order under challenge.

(3.) Mr. Manjit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s) -HUDA, submits that Sec. 29 of the Limitation Act statutorily prescribes the provisions contained in Ss. 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act would apply, which are not expressly excluded by any special or local law. The terms and conditions restricting the claim to be lodged within 180 days was against the provisions of Sec. 23 of the contract Act and therefore, HUDA could not be prevented to lodge the claim within three years from the accrual of the formal action, which actually was filed and entertained by the Arbitrator. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mukri Gopalan Vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker" : 1995 AIR (SC) 2272.