CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Kulbhushan Gupta vs Union of India (UOI)

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 March 2011 · Citation: (2011) 03 P&H CK 0241

HON’BLE JUDGES
Hemant Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11
CASE NUMBER
Arbitration Case No. 76 of 2006 (O and M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 515 words

Hemant Gupta, J.

CM No. 5941-CII of 2011

Application is allowed as prayed for.

Arb. Case No. 76 of 2006

1.

Present is the petition for appointment of an Arbitrator u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the ''Act''). It is the case of the Petitioner that final bill in respect of a Contract No. GE(S)A-53/90-91 was submitted on 1.12.2000 under protest but since the payment has not been made, therefore, the matter is required to be referred to the Arbitrator. The present petition was filed on 19.5.2003 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ambala but subsequently, the matter stands transferred to this Court.

2.

In reply, it has been pointed out that the Petitioner was given contract for repair of roofs of the building in KE/ICC line and Allenby line at Ambala Cantt., on 28.11.1990. The work was to be completed on 9.5.1991. The Petitioner could not complete the work within stipulated period of contract. The contract was cancelled on 24.3.1992 and the remaining work was got completed at the risk and cost of the Petitioner. The claim raised by the Respondent on account of the excess amount incurred by the Respondent was demanded vide the letter dated 8.5.1993 but the same was not deposited by the Petitioner which led to referring the disputed to the Arbitrator at the instance of the Respondent. It is alleged that the claim was submitted by the Petitioner on 10.2.2003 is time barred.

3.

The Petitioner has filed a miscellaneous application for placing on record the Award dated 25.9.2003 in respect of the dispute referred to by the Respondent in the written statement. As per the said Award, the Petitioner has been found liable to pay an amount of Rs. 64,124.74 paise excluding interest and cuts.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the claim of the Petitioner was not referred for adjudication to an Arbitrator appointed by Respondent. Hence, the Petitioner was within the jurisdiction to claim adjudication of disputes. Such claim is within the period of limitation as the final bill was submitted by the Petitioner on 1.12.2000.

5.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The parties entered into a Contract on 28.11.1990. The stipulated date for completion of work was 9.5.1991. The Petitioner has not completed the work within time which led to termination of the Contract. Subsequently, the work has been got completed at the risk and cost of the Petitioner. The dispute between the parties have been adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator way back vide the Award dated 5.11.2003. The final bill raised by the Petitioner on 1.12.2000 is beyond the period of limitation and after the dispute was referred for adjudication by the Respondent to an Arbitrator.

6.

In these circumstances, the claim raised by the Petitioner is not only beyond the period of limitation but also not tenable for the reasons that the Petitioner has been found liable to pay an amount of Rs. 64,124.74 paise arising out of the said Contract.

Dismissed.