LAWS(JHAR)-2017-2-78

STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. RAJ MOHAN PD. SINHA

Decided On February 03, 2017
STATE OF JHARKHAND Appellant
V/S
Raj Mohan Pd. Sinha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Arbitration Appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Gumla dated 20th Feb., 2014, whereby, Miscellaneous Case no.13 of 2005 preferred by the State of Jharkhand has been dismissed without appreciating the fact that the claim of this respondent is absolutely time barred.

(2.) Counsel for the State-appellant mainly submitted that in pursuant to an Agreement No.F2/47 of 1989-90, the work was allotted to the respondent of Construction of Left Outlet of Upper Shankh Reservoir Project in District Gumla of the State of Jharkhand. Partly the work was done and rest of the work was abandoned. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.3870 of 1995(R) which was disposed of by Honourable High Court at Patna allowing the petitioner to file a suit. Thereafter, another writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.3750 of 1997(R) was preferred in which also, the Honourable High Court at Patna allowed the petitioner to take recourse under law. Thereafter, Arbitration Application No.11 of 2002 under sub-section (6) of Sec. 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was instituted and learned Arbitrator was appointed on 19th Jan., 2005. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the date of award is 08.06.2005. The interest awarded by the Arbitrator is from 15th Feb., 199 The whole claim of this respondent is hopelessly time barred. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Arbitrator, nor by the Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Gumla while dismissing Miscellaneous Case No.13 of 2005 and the counsel for the appellants has relied upon a decision reported in (2003) 9 SCC 505 (Union of India & anr Vs. British India Corporation Limited & Ors) and also a decision reported in (2009) 5 SCC 121 (State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries). On the basis of the aforesaid two decisions, it is mainly submitted that as because claim of the respondent is time barred, the amount awarded by the learned Arbitrator, which is at Rs.11,86,949.00 with interest at the rate of 6% till the date of award, shall be paid with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that higher amount was paid to the respondent than what he was entitled to. The written statement filed by the appellant was also not appreciated by the learned Arbitrator.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent submitted that after having participated in the arbitration proceeding and getting consent for appointment of the Arbitrator, this appellant should not be allowed to raise plea of limitation. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the work order was given on 8th Feb., 1990, agreement was entered into on 22nd Feb., 1990, the bill was raised on 31st May, 1991 and the last bill had been raised, which is 9th running bill, on 15th May, 1992 and the letter was written by the Secretary to the Executive Engineer on 3rd April, 1992 which is at Annexure-3 and, thereafter, the Arbitration Application was preferred bearing No.11 of 2002 in which consent was given for appointment of learned Arbitrator on 9th Jan., 2005 and hence, the claim of this respondent is not time barred.