UNION OF INDIA Vs. SAGARMULL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sikkim dated 10.8.1993 allowing the application of the respondent/plaintiff under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act and directing the Chief Engineer to appoint an Arbitrator and to refer to him the disputes raised by the contractor.

(2.) The plaintiff was awarded a contract by defendant No. 2 and the work was completed on 30.7.1997. Final bill was passed and the amount was received by the contractor, under protest. Even before the final bill was passed, the petitioner had made a representation to the Chief Engineer on 4.8.1980 for appointment of an Arbitrator to settle the disputes arising from the contract. A reminder was sent on 25.11.1980 and also on 3.2.81. The matter regarding appointment of an Arbitrator was again raised by the petitioner vide his letters dated 10.9.1982 and 30.8.1982. Subsequently, the petitioner received a letter dated 23.9.1983 from the Chief Engineer's Office requesting him to refer the case to the Chief Engineer, Siliguri Zone for appointment of an Arbitrator. Another letter dated 23.8.1985 had also been received by the petitioner showing that certain particulars were asked from CWE/GE. The petitioner again wrote a letter on 17.4.1987 requesting the appointment of an Arbitrator. Reminders in this connection were sent on 11.2.1991 and 22.4.1991. The petitioner received a letter dated 8.5.1991 informing him that certain particulars were called for from CWE/GE and, therefore, action would be taken on receipt of the same. Since no action was taken, nor an arbitrator appointed, the petitioner filed the present application under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act on 30.9.1991. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments and considering the documents filed by the parties held, that the requisite conditions for filing of original arbitrator agreement and appointment of an Arbitrator had been fulfilled and accordingly directed the Chief Engineer, Siliguri Zone to appoint an Arbitrator and refer the disputes raised by the contractor. It is against this Order that the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) The only point raised before me by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the application under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act was barred by limitation for the reason that the work was completed on 30.7.1979, the final bill was paid on 14.11.1980 the dispute was raised for the first time on 6.3.1984 and the application under Sec. 20 was filed only in Sept. 1991. He has placed reliance on S. Rajan Vs. State of Kerala and another, (1992) 2 Arb LR 281 and State of Maharashtra Vs. Sidiq & Co.(1993) 1 Arb LR 551. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the Trial Court and has placed reliance on Oriental Bldg. & Furnishing Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, AIR 1981 Delhi 293; Shankar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 1983 Arb LR 417 ; Inder Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority (1988) 2 Arb LR 270 ; and Union of India Vs. M/s. L.K. Ahuja & Co, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1172.