-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..1.. ARA6/07
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY.
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
ARBITRATIONAPPEALNO.6OF2007STATEOFMAHARASHTRA(attheinstanceofIrrigationDepartment,ExecutiveEngineer,KoynaDivisionNo.2)
...Appellant.
V/s.
1.HINDUSTANCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY(LTD.(HCC).
2.ARBITRALTRIBUNALOF:a)S.N.Jha,b)V.M.Ranade,c)B.S.Panchmukhi
...Respondents.
MrA.A.Kumbhakoni,learnedcounsela/wMrsS.V.SonawanelearnedA.G.P.,MrShardulSinghandMrAbhayAnturkarforAppellant.
MrAspiChinoy,seniorCounsela/wMrArifDoctori/bM/sHareshJoshi&Co.forRespondents.
CORAM:R.D.DHANUKAJ.RESERVEDON:JANUARY09,2013.PRONOUNCEDON:FEBRUARY01,2013.
JUDGMENT:
By this appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration And
Conciliation Act 1996 ( for short herein after referred as 'the
Act'), the
Government seekstochallengeanorderandjudgmentdated29th
June2006
passedbythelearnedDistrictJudge,Ratnagirirejectingarbitrationapplication
Asmita 1/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..2.. ARA6/07
No.44of2003filedbytheGovernmentunderSection34oftheAct.
2. TheGovernment hadchallengedanawarddeliveredbytheArbitral
Tribunalallowingsomeoftheclaimsmadebytherespondent
(forshortthe
Government
isreferredas'Government'andtherespondentisreferredas'the
contractor').
Someoftherelevantfactsforthepurposeofdecidingthisappeal
areasunder:
Pursuant to the invitation of tender on 1st April 1991 by
the
Government andsubmissionofbidbythecontractoron17th
June1991,the
Government awardedtheworkof constructionof civil workof
pressureand
powerhouseinICTcontractNo.2tothecontractor.Theamountofthecontract
awardedwasatRs.6825lakh.Boththepartiesenteredintoanagreementon20th
March1992. Stipulateddateof commencementof theworkwas20th
March
1992.Thestipulateddateofcompletionwas19thMarch1997.TheGovernment
grantedextensionoftimetocompletetheworktothecontractortill31stMarch
2000.Theworkwascompletedbythecontractoron31stMarch2000.Thedate
ofcompletionofmaintenanceperiodwas3rdOctober2000.
3. Thedisputearosebetweenthepartiesduringexecutionof workin
respectofhiddenexpenses. Thecontractorinvokedarbitrationclause.
On27th
Asmita 2/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..3.. ARA6/07
April1998,firstarbitrationproceedingsstarted.Byanawarddated4thDecember
1998,theclaimofthecontractorwaspartlyacceptedbythelearnedarbitrator.
Pursuant to said award, the Government paid sum of Rs.10.2 crore
to the
contractor.TheGovernmentdidnotchallengethesaidaward.
4.
On3rdOctober2000,defectliabilityperiodended.Thedisputearose
betweentheparties. Thematterwasreferredtoarbitration.
ArbitralTribunal
wasconstitutedbyappointmentofonearbitratorbyeachparty.
Thepresiding
arbitratorwasappointedbytheCentralWaterCommission,NewDelhi.
5. On26thJune2003,thelearnedarbitratormadeanawardinfavourof
thecontractorawardingasumofRs.17,81,25,152/.
Beingaggrievedbythe
saidaward,theGovernmentfiledarbitrationapplicationNo.44of2003on22nd
March2003intheCourtofDistrictJudge,Ratnagirichallengingthesaidaward
underSection34oftheAct.Byanorderandjudgmentdated29thJune2006,the
learnedDistrictJudgedealtwithfiveobjectionsraisedbytheGovernment
by
wayof preliminaryobjectionsonlyandnegativedeachof
suchobjectionand
rejectedthesaidarbitrationapplication.
TheGovernmenthasfiledthisappeal
underSection37oftheActforimpugningtheorderandjudgmentdated29th
June2006passedbythelearnedDistrictJudge.
Asmita 3/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..4.. ARA6/07
6. Though Mr Kumbhakoni, the learned counsel appearing for
the
Government wantedtoadvancearguments inrespect of variousother
issues
touching the merits of the claims, however, as the learned
senior counsel
appearingforthecontractorobjectedtosuchadditionalsubmissionswhichwere
notmadebeforethelearnedDistrictJudge,MrKumbhakonithelearnedcounsel
wasnotallowedtoagitatethoseadditionalissues.MrKumbhakoni,thelearned
counsel,thereforedidnotaddressthisCourtonadditionalissuesraisedbythe
GovernmentandaddressedthisCourtonlyonfivepreliminaryobjectionsraised
bytheGovernmentbeforetheDistrictJudgeinthisproceedingsalso.
7. MrKumbhakoni,thelearnedcounselsubmitsthatthecontractorhad
accepted payment under final bill without making any protest and
thus the
contractitself ceasetoexist.
Thelearnedcounselsubmitsthattheclaimsthus
made by the contractor were not arbitrable in view of such
accord and
satisfactionduetoacceptanceoffinalbillwithoutprotest.
Thelearnedcounsel
submitsthatthecontractorhadacceptedandsigned164thandfinalbilland165th
andfinalbillwithoutprotest.Itissubmittedthatboththesebillsweresignedby
theauthorisedrepresentativeofthecontractorandchequesforfinalbillhadbeen
acceptedandcreditedinthebankaccountofthecontractor.
Asmita 4/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..5.. ARA6/07
8. Mr Chinoy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the
contractor,ontheotherhandsubmitsthatthesignatoryto164thand165thbills
wasnotauthorisedtosignanysuchbillsbuthewasauthorisedtosign/acceptRA
bills. The learnedcounsel submits that under clause60.8of
theGCC, the
contractorhadsubmittedthedraftfinalbillon30thDecember2000containing3
parts(i) BOQitems,(ii)Extraitemsand(iii)Claims.
Itissubmittedthatthe
Governmentsdidnotpreparetherequisitedraftfinalaccountwithin2monthsas
requiredunderClause60.8andalsodidnotpreparefinalcertificateunderthe
saidclause.ItissubmittedthatpaymentofBOQitemsandExtraitemswasmade
bytheGovernmentaspartof164thandfinalbillandpaymentforpricevariation
wasmadeaspartof165thandfinalbill.Itissubmittedthathowever,inrespect
of5claims,nofinalbillwasissuedeitheracceptingorrejectingtheclaimsmade
bythecontractor.Itissubmittedthateventheamountsascertifiedunder164th
and165thbillswerepaidbytheGovernmentin34instalments.Itissubmitted
that164thand165thandfinalbillswerenotfinalbillsascontemplatedbyclause
60.8.Thecontractordidnotissuenoclaimcertificate.Itissubmittedthatthus,
therewasnoaccordorsatisfactiononthepartofthecontractorandthusclaims
werearbitrable.
9. The learned senior counsel placed reliance upon the judgment
of
Asmita 5/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..6.. ARA6/07
Supreme Court in case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs.
Annapurna
Construction1andmoreparticularlypara9whichreadsthus:
9.Onlybecausetherespondenthasacceptedthefinalbill,thesamewouldnotmean
that it was not entitled to raise any claim. It is not the case of
theGovernmentthatwhileacceptingthefinalbill,therespondenthadunequivocallystatedthathewouldnotraiseanyfurtherclaim....
10.
Relyinguponthesaidjudgment,thelearnedcounselsubmitsthat,as
thecontractorhadnotunequivocallystatedthathewouldnotraiseanyfurther
claim,contractorwouldbeentitledtoraiseanyclaimandwouldnotbeestopped
orprecludedfromraisinganyclaim.
11. The arbitral tribunal has considered this issue in paragraph
10 to
10.13of the impugnedaward. It was observed that procedure
statedunder
clause60.8(b)and(c)wasnotobservedbytheGovernment.
Contractoralso
didnotsubmitthe'draftstatementofFinalAccounts'asperClause60.8(a)and
didnotpursueitwiththeGovernment
forissuanceofsuchcertificateofFinal
AccountasperClause60.8(c).TheArbitralTribunalobservedthatneitherthe
contractornortheGovernmenthereinadheredtotheprovisionsofClause60.8.
Ithasbeenheldthatitwouldhavebeenreasonableonthepartofthecontractor
to expect that the five claims would be considered by the
Government
1 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)
Asmita 6/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..7.. ARA6/07
independentlyandaccepted,partiallyacceptedorrejectedontheirmeritsasthe
casemaybeandifthatdecisionoftheGovernment
wasnotacceptabletothe
contractor,thedisputecouldthenbereferredtothePanelofArbitratorsasper
Clause66SettlementofDispute.TheArbitralTribunalrenderedafindingthat
thecontractordidnotwaiveitsrighttoreferitsclaimforadjudicationbythe
Arbitral panel merely because they had not lodged the protest
against the
paymentbytheGovernmentoneither164thandfinalor165thorfinalbill.
12.
TheDistrictJudgehasconsideredthisissueinparagraphs33and34
oftheimpugnedOrderandhasrejectedthecontentionraisedbytheGovernment
afterrecordingreasons.
13.
Onperusaloftherecordsproducedbyboththepartiesandonperusal
of theawardmadebytheArbitral Tribunal andorder passedbythe
learned
DistrictJudge,itisclearthattheprocedureunderClause60.8wasnotfollowed
byeither party. Thus RAbills 164and165and final bills were
rightly not
consideredbytheArbitralTribunalasfinalbills.Itisnotindisputethatthere
wasanyseparatebillpreparedinrespectoffiveclaimsmadebythecontractor.
Inmyview,afterconsideringthefactsandthedocumentsandoninterpretation
ofClause60.8,ArbitralTribunalhasrenderedafindingthattherewasnoaccord
Asmita 7/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..8.. ARA6/07
andsatisfactionandthecontractorhadnotwaiveditsrighttomakeanyclaims.
SuchfindingsrenderedbytheArbitralTribunalandconfirmedbythelearned
DistrictJudgearenotperverse.
Inmyview,nointerferenceisthuswarranted
withsuchfindingsrenderedbytheArbitralTribunalandupheldbytheDistrict
Judge.
14. The next submission of Mr Kumbhakoni, the learned
counsel
appearingfortheGovernmentisthatClaimNo.1madebythecontractorbefore
thelearnedarbitratorwasbarredby resjudicata.
Thelearnedcounselsubmits
thatClaimNo.1oughttohavebeenreferredtoearlierArbitralPanelintheyear
1998.Itissubmittedthatthoughtheworkinrespectofthisclaimwascompleted
duringthependencyof earlier arbitrationproceedings,
thecontractordidnot
raisethisclaimintheearlierarbitration.
15. Mr Chinoy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the
contractorontheotherhandsubmitsthattherewere3Claimsreferredtoearlier
arbitraltribunaland2Claimswereaddedlateron.Itissubmittedthatpresent
ClaimNo.1wasnotmaturedat that timeandcouldnotbe included in
that
arbitration.
ItissubmittedthatmakingpaymentforExtra/deviateditemswith
denovorateanalysisafterapplyingthelabourmarkupandoverheadandprofit
Asmita 8/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..9.. ARA6/07
markup,asawardedbytheearlierarbitrationpanelwasunderconsiderationat
variouslevelsoftheGovernment.ThecontractorinitiatedthesaidClaimon30th
March1999andthesamewasrecommendedbytheEngineeroftheGovernment.
TheissuewasunderconsiderationatdifferentlevelsoftheGovernmentasthe
GovernmentdidnotpayevenattherateadoptedbytheArbitralTribunalinthe
earlierarbitration,thecontractorinvokedarbitrationvideletterdated27th
July
2000.
Itissubmittedthatthelearnedarbitratorhasrenderedafindingoffact.
ClaimNo.1wasreferredbytheGovernmentitselfforadjudicationofthearbitral
tribunal. The District Judge also rejected this contention
advanced by the
Government inparagraph45oftheimpugnedorder.
TheDistrictJudgeheld
that the disputes referred in 19971998were distinct than present
one and
therefore,noquestionofresjudicataarises.Thelearnedseniorcounselpointed
outthattheonlygroundraisedinarbitrationapplicationfiledunderSection34
onthisissuewasthattheClaimwasbarredbytheprinciplesofresjudicata.Itis
pointedoutthatsimilargroundisraisedevenintheappealmemoinground(g).
The learned senior counsel submits that the claim made before
the arbitral
tribunal in thesecondreferencewasadmittedlynot madebefore
thearbitral
tribunalinthefirstreference.Therewasnoadjudicationofanysuchclaiminthe
earlierproceedings.Thequestionofapplicabilityoftheprinciplesofresjudicata
therefore,didnotarise.
Asmita 9/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..10.. ARA6/07
16. Onperusaloftheimpugnedawardaswellastheorderpassedbythe
learnedDistrict Judge, it is clear that the finding is
renderedby the arbitral
tribunal as well as the learned District Judge that Claim No.1
pertained to
variationinproposedpercentages for the
labourmarkupandoverheadsand
profitonthesamelinesforextraitemsanddeviateditemswhichhadcroppedup
duringtherestofthecontractwork.
Ithasbeenheldthatmajorpartofthese
itemshadbeenexecutedevenpriortoreferringtheclaimtotheearlierArbitral
Panel.ThelearnedTribunalobservedthatClaimNo.1hadbeenincludedbythe
Government itself foradjudicationbeforetheArbitralTribunal
inthesecond
reference.Afindingisrecordedthattheitemexcludedandclaimedinthesecond
referenceweredifferent.TheDistrictJudgealsonegativedthecontentionofthe
Governmentontheissuewhilerecordingdetailreasons.
Inmyview,asClaim
No.1madeinthepresentproceedingswasnotclaimedadmittedlyintheearlier
arbitrationproceedings,therewasnoadjudicationonsuchclaimbytheArbitral
Tribunal,andthus questionofapplicabilityofprinciplesof
resjudicata didnot
arise. The only ground raised by the Government in its
application under
Section34beforetheDistrictJudgeandinthisappealmemofiledunderSection
37of theAct, it is urgedthat theclaimwasbarredbytheprinciplesof
res
judicata.Inmyview,thereisnomeritinthepleaoftheGovernmentthatClaim
No.1isbarredby resjudicata andthus,thisplearaisedbytheGovernment
is
Asmita 10/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..11.. ARA6/07
rejected.
17.
ThenextsubmissionurgedbyMrKumbhakoni,thelearnedcounselfor
theGovernmentisthattheclaimsarebarredbylawoflimitation.Itissubmitted
thattheworkofpressureshaftexcavationwasstartedon9thJuly1993andwas
completedon2ndSeptember1997.
Thecontractorreferredthedisputeagainst
item No.3 to the Executive Engineer on 10th February 1997 and
invoked
arbitrationon20th November2011.
AsfarasworkofTransformerHallArch.
Concrete is concerned, it is submittedthat
thesaidworkwasstartedon23rd
October 1992 andwas completed on19th February 1994. The dispute
was
referred in respect of this item to Executive Engineer on 14th
October 1996
whereasarbitrationwasinvokedon1stJune2001.AsfarasworkofTransformer
Hallexcavationisconcerned,itissubmittedthatthesaidworkwasstartedon
16thJuly1992andwascompletedon31stMarch1995,whereasissuewasraised
beforetheExecutiveEngineeron4thJune2001.ItissubmittedthatasperClause
66Aof theGeneral Conditions of Contract, in caseof dispute,
thecontractor
ought to have promptly asked the Engineer's Representative in
writing, for
writtendecisionandtheEngineer'sRepresentativewouldgivethedecisionwithin
60days.Itissubmittedthatonexpiryof60days,thecauseofactionhadarisen
forinvokingarbitration.ItissubmittedthatuponthefailurebytheExecutive
Asmita 11/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..12.. ARA6/07
Engineertodecidethedisputewithin60days, thecontractoroughtto
have
appealedtotheSuperintendingEngineerwithin30days. It
issubmittedthat
afterpreferringthedisputetoExecutiveEngineer,contractorwaitedfor3years
butdidnotexercisehisrighttofileanappeal.ItissubmittedthatitemNos.3,4
and5
wereinexistenceintheyear1998whenthefirstarbitrationtookplace.
The learned counsel placed reliance upon Article18 PartI of
schedule to
LimitationAct1963.ItissubmittedthatasperArticle18ofLimitationAct,asno
timehasbeenfixedforpayment,theperiodoflimitationis3yearscommencing
fromthedatewhentheworkwascompleted.
Itissubmittedthatinrespectof
ClaimNos.3,4and5,theworkwascompletedmuchpriorto3yearsbeforethe
arbitration clause was invoked by the contractor. The learned
counsel
demonstratedfromtablereferredinwrittensubmissions,thedateofcompletion
ofwork,referencemadetoExecutiveEngineer,rejectionofExecutiveEngineer;
reference made to Superintending Engineer, rejection by
Superintending
Engineer; reference made to Chief Engineer and rejection of
Claim by Chief
Engineerandalsothedateofinvokingarbitration.Thesaidtableisreproduced
asunder:
Asmita 12/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..13.. ARA6/07
Claim
Nos.
Work
completed
Ref.to
EE
Rej.by
EE
Ref.to
SE
Rej.by
SE
Ref.To
CE
Rej.By
CE
Arbitrationinvoked
3 02.09.97 10.02.97 17.07.00 03.08.00 22.09.00 12.10.00 08.11.00
20.11.00
4 19.02.94 14.10.96 04.11.00 27.02.01 12.04.01 10.05.01 21.05.01
01.06.01
5 31.03.95 14.10.96 19.09.00 27.02.01 12.04.01 10.05.01 25.05.01
04.06.01
Article18 and Article55 of PartII, Article113 of PartX and
Article137ofPartIIoftheLimitationActreadasunder:
Art. Descriptionofapplication Periodof
limitation
Timefromwhichperiodbeginstorun
18
Forthepriceofworkdonebytheplaintiffforthedefendantathisrequest,
wherenotimehasbeenfixedforpayment.
Threeyears When the work isdone.
55 For compensation for the breach of anycontract, express of
implied not hereinspeciallyprovidedfor.
Threeyears Whenthecontract isbroken or (wherethere are
successivebreaches) when thebreach in respect ofwhich the suit
isinstituted occurs or(where the breach iscontinuing when
itceases).
113
AnysuitforwhichnoperiodoflimitationisprovidedelsewhereinthisSchedule.
Thereyears Whentherighttosueaccrues.
Asmita 13/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..14.. ARA6/07
137 Anyotherapplicationforwhichnoperiodoflimitation is provided
elsewhere in thisdivision.
Threeyears When the right toapplyaccrues.
18.
MrKumbhakoni,thelearnedcounselsubmitsthatoncecauseofaction
had commenced, it did not stop. It is submitted that merely
because the
representationand/orClaimwasmadebythecontractorbeforevariousofficers
were pending andwere not decided, cause of action would not
stop. The
learnedcounselpressedintoserviceSection9oftheLimitationActinsupportof
thisplea.ThelearnedcounselplacedrelianceuponthejudgmentofthisCourt
decidedon9thOctober2012incaseofAdityaBirlaChemicals(India)Ltd.Vs.
TataMotorsLtd.2inArbitrationPetitionNo.1027of2011deliveredbythisCourt
(R.D.Dhanuaka,J.)andmoreparticularlyparagraphs18an19whichreadthus:
18.
InmyviewclaimmadebytheRespondentwasaclaimsimplicitorforrecovery of
additional lease rent by virtue of disallowance of depreciation
byassessingofficer.Inmyview,Article54oftheScheduletoLimitationActdoesnotapplytoamoneyclaim.Inmyview,therelianceplacedbythelearnedArbitratoronArticle54whilerejectingthepleaoflimitationistotallyperverseandwithoutapplicationofmind.
ThelearnedArbitratorhasmisdirectedbyapplyingwrongarticleofScheduletolimitation.
InmyviewtheLearnedArbitratorhasdecidedcontrarytosubstantiatelawinforceinIndia.AwardiscontrarytoSection28(a)oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996andisthusinconflictwithpublicpolicy.Inmyview,sincetheclaimmadebytheRespondentwasbarredbythelawoflimitationasonthedateofthereceiptofnoticeofinvokingarbitrationclause,itwasdutyoftheLearnedArbitratortorejectsuchtimebarredclaim.
19.
InmyviewrighttosueaccruedwhenclaimfordepreciationmadebyRespondent
was rejected on 31st March, 2004 and raising of demand by
theRespondentbyissuingdebitnoteon19th
June,2006andrefusaltopaythesaiddemandbythePetitioneron17thAugust2006wouldnotcommencefreshperiod
2 MANU/MH/1642/2012
Asmita 14/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..15.. ARA6/07
of limitation, whichhadalreadycommencedon31st March, 2004.
InviewofSection9oftheLimitationAct,1963,oncetimeisbeguntorun,nosubsequentdisabilityorinabilitytoinstituteasuitormakeanapplicationstopsit.Oncetimestarts
running, it does not stop. Limitation is not extendedunless there
is
anacknowledgmentofliabilityorpartpayment.ItisnotthecaseoftheRespondentthatthePetitioneracknowledgeditsallegedliabilityortherewasanypartpaymentmadebythePetitionerafter31stMarch,2004.Inmyview,correspondencesdoesnotextendtheperiodoflimitation.
19. MrKumbhakoni, the learnedcounsel
alsoplacedrelianceuponthe
JudgmentofSupremeCourtincaseofJ.C.Budhrajavs.Chairman,OrissaMinig
CorporationLtd.AndAnother3andmoreparticularlyparagraphs25and26in
supportofhispleathatlimitationforasuitiscalculatedasonthedateoffilingof
suit,whereasincaseofarbitration,limitationoftheClaimistobecalculatedon
thedateonwhichthearbitrationisdeemedtohavebeencommenced.
25. The learned Counsel for the Government submitted that
thelimitationwouldbeguntorunfromthedateonwhichadifferencearosebetweentheparties,andinthiscasethedifferencearoseonlywhenOMCrefusedtocomplywiththenoticedated4.6.1980seekingreferencetoarbitration.Weareafraid,thecontentioniswithoutmerit.TheGovernmentisobviouslyconfusingthelimitationforapetitionunderSection
8(2)oftheArbitrationAct,1940withthelimitationfortheclaimitself.Thelimitationforasuitiscalculatedasonthedateoffilingofthesuit.Inthecaseofarbitration,limitationfortheclaimistobecalculatedonthedateonwhichthearbitrationisdeemedtohavecommenced.
26. Section
37(3)oftheActprovidesthatforthepurposeofLimitationAct,
anarbitration
isdeemedtohavebeencommencedwhenonepartytothearbitration agreement
serves on theother party thereto, a notice requiring
theappointmentofanarbitrator.Suchanoticehavingbeenservedon4.6.1980,ithastobeseenwhethertheclaimswereintimeasonthatdate.Iftheclaimswerebarredon4.6.1980,itfollowsthattheclaimshadtoberejectedbythearbitratoron
the ground that the claims were barred by limitation. The said
period
hasnothingtodowiththeperiodoflimitationforfilingapetitionunderSection8(2)oftheAct.InsofarasapetitionunderSection8(2),thecauseofactionwouldarise
3 (2008)2SupremeCourtCases444
Asmita 15/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..16.. ARA6/07
when the other party fails to comply with the notice invoking
arbitration.Therefore,theperiodoflimitationforfilingapetitionunderSection8(2)seekingappointmentofanarbitratorcannotbeconfusedwiththeperiodoflimitationformaking
a claim. The decisions of this Court in Inder Singh Rekhi v.
MANU/SC/0271/1988 : Delhi Development Authority [1988]3SCR351 ,
PanchuGopal Bose v. MANU/SC/0385/1994Board of Trustees for Port of
Calcutta[1993]3SCR361 and Utkal Commercial Corporation v.
MANU/SC/0028/1999 :
CentralCoalFields[1999]1SCR166alsomakethispositionclear.
20. The learned counsel submits that limitation for seeking
an
appointmentofanarbitratorcannotbeconfusedwithperiodof
limitationfor
makingaclaim.ItissubmittedthatthelearnedarbitratoraswellastheDistrict
Judgehavemixedthetwoseparatearticlesoflimitationi.e.applicabletoClaims
andformakingapplicationforappointmentofarbitrator.
Thelearnedcounsel
submitsthatthelearnedDistrictJudgehasplacedrelianceuponArticle137of
ScheduleI to the Limitation Act and also Article 55 which are
not at all
applicabletotheClaimsmade.
ItissubmittedthatArticle137appliestothe
applicationinCourtandnottotheClaim.Itissubmittedthattherewasnoclaim
forcompensationbeforethelearnedarbitratorwhichwouldfallunderArticle55.
The learned counsel then placed reliance upon the Judgment of
this Court
delivered on 16th December 2011 in case of Maharahshtra State
Power
GenerationCo.Ltd.Vs.M/s.GeoMillerCo.Pvt.Ltd.inArbitrationPetition
No.466of2006andmoreparticularlyparagraphs2to8whichreadthus:
2.Therelevantfactsare,thePetitionerhadfloatedatenderforthedesign,manufacture,
supply, erection, testing and commissioning of the prewater
Asmita 16/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..17.. ARA6/07
treatment plant, MSEB Chandrapur Thermal Power Station, Unit 6
andadvertisement in that behalf was published by MSEB in the year
1987. TheRespondent participated in the bid and the contract was
awarded to
theRespondent.DisputearosebetweenthepartieswithregardtocertainclaimsoftheRespondentforextraworkcarriedoutbytheRespondent.ItisanadmittedpositionthattheArbitrationclausewasinvokedbytheRespondentbyletterdated2712001.BeforetheArbitrator,oneoftheobjectionsraisedonbehalfofthePetitionerwasthatthereferenceisbarredbythelawoflimitation.
ItisalsocommongroundbeforemethatsofarasthepaymentforthecivilworkdonebytheRespondentisconcerned,thepaymenthasbeenmade.TheclaimwhichhasbeenawardedbythelearnedArbitratorisinrelationtothepriceoftheextraworkcarriedoutbytheRespondent.BeforethelearnedArbitrator
it
wasclaimedonbehalfofthePetitionerthattheextraworkinrelationtowhichtheclaimhasbeenmadewascompletedon1561992andtheplantwashandedovertothePetitioneron2481994.Thereafter,theRespondentmadeclaimforthepriceoftheextraworkandthatclaimwasrejectedbyletterdated10101995.TheRespondentinvokedarbitrationclauseandmadetheclaimon2712001,andtherefore,itwasclaimedthatitisbarredbythelawoflimitation.
ThelearnedArbitratorhasconsideredthisobjectioninhisaward.
Heacceptedthatthoughit
isclearthattheworkwascompletedon1561992,thattheplantwashandedoverbytheRespondenttothePetitioneron2481994andthatthoughtheclaimswererejectedon10101995,accordingtothelearnedArbitratorasthefinalbillwasnotsubmittedtilltheyear2000andasthecorrespondencebetweenthepartieswasgoingon,causeofactionforinvokingthearbitrationwouldnotarisetill16thDecember,2000.
ItisthecaseofthepresentRespondentthatthefinalbillwaspreparedon16122000.
3.ThelearnedCounselappearingforthePetitionersubmitsthatthelearned
ArbitratorfailedtoseethattheperiodoflimitationforinvokingthearbitrationclausewillbegovernedbyArticle18oftheScheduleoftheLimitationAct.
According to the learned Counsel, the cause of action for invoking
thearbitrationclausewillarisewhentheworkforthepriceofwhichthearbitrationclausehasbeeninvokedwasdoneandthat
was in the year 1992
andtherefore,invocationofthearbitrationclauseinJanuary,2001isbarredbythelawofLimitation.ThelearnedCounselreferringtotheprovisionsofSection9oftheLimitationActsubmittedthatoncetheperiodoflimitationiscommence,itwillruncontinuouslyandtherefore,merelybecausecorrespondencewasgoingonbetweenthepartiesinrelationtotheamounttobepaid,runningoftheperiodoflimitationwillnotstop.ThereferencehastobemadebytheRespondentwithinaperiodofthreeyearsfromthedateonwhichtheworkwascompleted.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for
theRespondent,ontheotherhand,relyingonseveraljudgmentsincludingthejudgmentofthelearnedsingleJudgeofthis
court inthecaseofShri NyaneshwaBhiku Dhargalkar
v/s.ExecutiveEngineer, 1999(3)RAJ(B0m)submittedthat it is Article
137of
theLimitationActwhichappliesinthepresentcaseandthattherighttoapplywill
Asmita 17/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..18.. ARA6/07
accruewhenthedisputebetweenthepartiesarose.AccordingtothelearnedCounseltill
thenegotiationsbetweenthepartiesweregoingonandastherewasnodenialtomakethepaymentintheyear1992,thecauseofactionwillnotaccrueandthereforethearbitrationclausewasinvokedwithintheperiodoflimitation.ThelearnedCounselalsoreliesonthejudgmentofthelearnedsingleJudgeoftheDelhiHighCourtinthecaseofPremPowerConstruction(Pvt)Ltd.v/s.NationalHydroelectricPowerCorp.Ltd.&Anr.160(2009)DelhiLawTimes610.PerusalofthejudgmentofthelearnedsingleJudgeofthiscourtinthecaseofNyaneshwar(supra)andthejudgmentofthelearnedsingleJudgeoftheDelhiHighCourtinthecaseofPremPowerConstructionLtd.(supra)showsthat
both have relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
ofMajor(Retd.)InderSinghRekhiv/s.DelhiDevelopmentAuthority,(1988)2SCC338.
ThelearnedCounselfortheRespondentalsosubmittedthatinanycasetheperiodoflimitationwouldbegovernedbyArticle113oftheLimitationAct.
Accordingtohim,thecauseofactionwillarisewhentherighttosueaccruesandtherighttosuewillaccruewhenthePetitionerrefusedtomakethepaymentfortheextraworkafterfinalbill.Thus,therighttosueaccruedintheyear1999whentherewasrefusaltomakethepayment.
5. Now in the light of these
rivalsubmissions,iftherecordisperused, it is clear fromtheaward
itself that there is no disputebetween
thepartiesthattheextraworkforthepaymentofwhichthepresentreferencewasmade
was completed on 1561992. There is also no dispute that
thePetitioner rejected theclaimmadebytheRespondent for extra workby
letterdated10101995.ThelearnedArbitratorhasreferredtothisaspectofthematterinparagraph21oftheawardandhasobservedthus:
EveniftherewasrejectionoftheClaimantsclaimforextraworkon10101995assubmittedbythemthelimitationcannotbesaidtohavecommencedfromthatdate,ifregardbehadtothefactthatevenaccordingtotheRespondentsthefinalbillwaspreparedaslateason16thDecember,2000.
Thus,accordingtothelearnedArbitratorthecauseofactiondoesnotaccrueoncompletionofthework.Itdoesnotaccrueevenonrejectionoftheclaim,butitaccrueswhenthefinalbillisprepared.
6.OnbehalfofthePetitionerrelianceisplacedonArticle18oftheLimitationAct.ThatArticlereadsasunder:
(18)Forthepriceofworkdonebytheplaintiffforthedefendantat
hisrequest,
wherenotimehasbeenfixedforpayment.ThePeriodoflimitationisthreeyearsandthetimebeginstorunwhentheworkisdone.
7.PerusaloftheabovequotedArticleshowsthatwhenasuitistobe
instituted for recovery of the price of the work done by the
Plaintiff for the
Asmita 18/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..19.. ARA6/07
Defendant,andwhenthereisnotimefixedforpaymenttobemade,
thecauseofactionforinstitutingthesuitariseswhentheworkiscompletedandthesuithastobeinstitutedwithinaperiodofthreeyearsfromtheaccrual
ofcauseofaction.ItisclearfromtherecordthatthepresentdisputewhichwasreferredtoarbitrationisforrecoveryofthepriceoftheextraworkdonebytheRespondentforthePetitionerattherequestofthePetitionerandtherewasnotimefixedformakingthepayment.
Therefore,accordingtothisArticle,thecauseofactionwillaccruewhentheworkisdone.
Thelearned
CounselappearingfortheRespondentreliedonArticle113oftheLimitationAct.
Article113readsasunder:
113.Anysuitforwhichnoperiodoflimitationisprovidedelsewherein the
Schedule, the period of limitation is three years and the
timebeginstorunwhentherighttosueaccrues.
8.PerusaloftheaboveArticlemakesitclearthatthisArticlecomesintoplayonlyonafindingthatforinstitutionofasuitfortheclaimwhichisinvolvedinthepresentmatter,thereisnoperiodoflimitationprovidedelsewhereintheschedule.Therefore,unlessafindingisrecordedthatArticle18doesnotapply,Article113cannotapply.IdonotseeanyreasonwhyArticle18willnotapplytothepresentdispute,becausethepresentdisputeisinrelationtothepriceoftheworkdonebytheRespondentforthePetitioner.ThelearnedCounselfortheRespondentalsocouldnotgiveanyreasonwhyArticle18willnotapply.Thus,astheworkwascompletedintheyear1992,thecauseofactionintermsofArticle18willaccruein1992andthereforethereferencewillhavetobemadewithin
a period of 3 years from 1992
unlessaccordingtoRespondentthetimegetsextendedbecauseof any
acknowledgement
etc.Admittedlyneitherarbitrationclauseisinvokedwithinthreeyearsfrom1992noranyextensionoftheperiodoflimitation
is claimed by the Respondent,and therefore the claimwill be barred
by the lawof limitation. What
isinterestingisthatthequestionbeforethelearnedArbitratorwaswhethertheclaim
was made within the period oflimitation. ThelearnedArbitrator has
recorded a finding that the claim is not barred by the law
oflimitation, but in the entire award there is no reference to any
Article in
theScheduleoftheLimitationAct,whichappliestothepresentcase.Inmyopinion,thisisanimpossibility.AnargumentastowhetheraclaimismadewithintheperiodoflimitationhasalwaystobemadewithreferencetosomeArticleintheScheduleoftheLimitationAct,withoutreferringtoanyarticleintheScheduleoftheLimitationAct,afindingeitherthattheclaimisbarredbylimitationoritisnotsobarredisimpossibletoberecorded.
SofarasapplicationofArticle137isconcerned,that Article is in
PartII,relating to applications. For invoking the arbitration
clause the
limitationprovidedbytheLimitationActformakingapplicationwillnotapply,thelimitationprovidedbythescheduleforinstitutionofasuitwillapply.
ThelearnedsingleJudgeofthisCourtinhisjudgmentinNyaneshwarcase(supra)andthelearned
Asmita 19/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..20.. ARA6/07
singleJudgeoftheDelhiHighCourtinthecaseofPremPowerConstructionLtd.(supra)havereliedonjudgmentoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseofInderSinghRekhi,referredtoabove.PerusalofthatjudgmentoftheSupremeCourt
showsthat
theretheSupremeCourtwasdealingwiththeapplicationmadeunderSection20ofArbitrationAct,1940,andasunderSection20
oftheArbitrationAct,1940anapplicationwastobemadetothecourt,obviouslyArticle137oftheLimitationActwillapply.Butintheschemeofthe1996Actnosuchapplicationiscontemplatedtobemadetoanycourtforinvokingthearbitrationclause.
PerusaloftheprovisionsofSection 21 of the Arbitration
ActshowsthatArbitralproceedingscommence,unlessthereisanagreementcontrarybetweentheparties,onthedateonwhicharequestforreferenceofthedisputetoarbitrationisreceivedbytheRespondent.The1996Act
doesnotcontemplateanyapplicationtobemadetothecourtfor
invokingthearbitration application and for commencement of
arbitration proceedings.Subsection 2 of Section43of
theArbitrationAct lays downthat for
thepurposeoflimitationActanarbitrationshallbedeemedtohavecommencedonthedatereferredto
inSection21. Therefore, it is clear that invocationof
thearbitrationclausehastobemadewithintheperiodoflimitationprovidedbytheLimitationActforinstitutionofasuitonthesamecauseofaction.SofarasanapplicationtobemadeunderSection11isconcerned,thatapplicationisnotforinvokingthearbitrationclause.Thatapplicationisforappointment
of arbitrator, after invoking the arbitration clause.Invocation of
the arbitration clause precedes an application under Section
11.Therefore,whenanapplicationunderSection11ismade,thatapplicationhastobemadewithintheperiodoflimitation,whichisprovidedbytheLimitationActforinstitutionofthesuitonthatcauseofaction.AnapplicationunderSection11cannot
be made after expiry of the period
oflimitationprovidedforinstitutionofsuitforrecoveryoftheclaim.TheHonbletheChiefJusticeorhisdesignatewillhavetomakeaninquirytofindoutwhethertheappointmentofArbitratoratthisjuncturewouldbenecessaryasaperiodoflimitationisover.TheSupremeCourtinitsjudgmentinthecaseofNationalInsuranceCo.Ltd.v/s.M/s.BogharaPolyfabPvt.Ltd.,AIR2009SC170,hasreferredtotheissueswhichhavetobedecidedbytheChiefJusticeorhisdesignateunder
Section11andtheissueswhichcanbeleftfordecisionbytheArbitrator.Oneoftheissues,accordingtotheSupremeCourtthathastobedecidedbytheHonbleChiefJusticeorhisdesignateunderSection11iswhethertheclaimisadead
claim or a live claim. It means that if an objection is raised,
whenapplicationunderSection11ismade,thatinvocationofthearbitrationclauseinthatcasehasnotbeenmadewithintheperiodoflimitation,thenthatquestionhastobedecidedbytheChiefJusticeorhisdesignate.ThequestiontobeconsideredatthattimeisnotwhetheranapplicationunderSection11ismadewithintheperiodoflimitation,butwhethertheinvocationofthearbitrationclausewasmadewithintheperiodoflimitation.Inmyopinion,therefore,thereisnoquestionofprovisionsofSection137applyinginsofarasinvocationofthearbitrationclauseandcommencement
of the period
oflimitationisconcerned.Sofarasthepresentcaseisconcerned,tomy
Asmita 20/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..21.. ARA6/07
minditisclearthatArticle18oftheLimitationActappliesandthereforeastheinvocationoftheArbitrationclauseisnotwithinperiodofthreeyearsfromthedateofcompletionofthework,whichwasintheyear1992,theclaimwasclearlybarredbythelawoflimitation.
21.
RelyinguponthisJudgmentofthisCourt,thelearnedcounselsubmits
that Article18 was applicable to the claims made by the
contractor andnot
Article55or Article 137as sought to beappliedby the District
Judge. The
learnedcounselsubmitsthatboththeseissuesareconsideredbythisCourtand
thefactsofthiscaseareidenticaltothefactsofthecaseincaseofMaharashtra
StatePowerGenerationCo.Ltd.(supra)andthesaidJudgmentisthusbinding.
22.
ThelearnedcounselalsoplacedrelianceupontheJudgmentofPunjab
AndHaryanaHighCourtincaseof
JullunderImprovementTrust,Jullunder
Vs.KuldipSingh4andmoreparticularlyparagraphs4and5whichreadthus:
4.
Themaincontroversyinthisappealis:whetherthesuitoftheplaintiffwanwithintimeornot?ItisthecommoncaseofthepartiesthatitisArticle18,Limitation
Act, 1963, which would govern the plaintiffs case. It provides
alimitationofthreeyearsfromthetimetheworkisdone.Thepresentsuitwasfiledon
921971. According to the plaintiff the cause of action arose to him
on14121967,whenthepaymentofthefinalbill,ExhibitD.19,wasreceivedbyhimunderprotestwhereasthecaseofthedefendantisthattheperiodofthreeyearswouldcommence
fromthedatetheworkwasdonewhichaccordingto it wascompletedon2891967,
asadmittedbytheplaintiff himself vide, Exhibit
D.4,dated2891967,writteninthisownhandwhereinhehadstatedthat90feetwideroadunder84acresschemewascompleteand,therefore,hisfinalbill,bepreparedaccordingly.Inanycase,accordingtothedefendant,inthefinalbill,ExhibitD.19,thecertificatetotheeffectthatnecessarydetailedmeasurementshavebeentakenasrecordedintheMeasurement
BookNo. 44, wasgivenon7101967, bythe
4 AIR1984PunjabAndHaryana185
Asmita 21/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..22.. ARA6/07
EngineerinchargeMohinderSingh,whoappearedasD.W.7.Thus,itwasarguedonbehalfofthedefendingthatevenafterthatdate.i.e.7101967,thepresentsuitfiledon921971,evenafterallowingthenoticeperiodoftwomonthswasbarredbytime.AccordingtothetrialCourt,thecauseofactionwouldarisetotheplaintiff
for the price of the work done only on furnishing of the
completioncertificate bytheEngineer incharge. Thecertificate of
theEngineer
incharge,accordingtothetrialCourtdidnotbearanydate.Since,accordingtothetrialCourt
thepayment of the lastbill wasreceivedbytheplaintiff
on14121967,under protest, the periodof limitation will start from
that date and that afterallowing the notice period of two months,
the suit filed by the plaintiff
on921971,waswithintime.ThetrialCourtalsofoundthattheplaintiffprosecutedwithduediligenceanothercivilproceedingfoundeduponthesamecauseofactioninaCourtwhichcouldnotgivethereliefand,therefore,hewasentitledtoget,theperiodspentinprosecutingthoseproceedingsexcludedunderS.
14,LimitationAct,(hereinaftercalledtheAct).
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parries, I am of
theconsideredopinionthattheplaintiffssuitwasbarredbytime.
23. Mr Chinoy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the
contractor on the other handsubmits that Article18 is not
applicable to the
claimsmadebythecontractor.
Thelearnedseniorcounselsubmitsthatthe
claimsmadebeforethearbitraltribunalwereforenhancementofthepricefor
theworkdoneandthusArticle113ofSchedule1ofLimitaitonActwouldapply.
The learned senior counsel placed reliance upon the Judgment in
case of
GannonDunkerley AndCo. Ltd. v. Union of India5 and more
particularly
paragraphs2to11whichreadthus:
2. The Sindri Factory Buildings were tobeconstructedunder
theadvice andguidance of M/s. Chemical Construction Corporationof
NewYork. That
Firmmadedelayinsupplyingthedrawingsandspecificationswhichinvolvedworkofa
51969(3)SupremeCourtCases607
Asmita 22/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..23.. ARA6/07
complicatednaturenotincludedintheoriginalcontract.
TimeforcompletionoftheworkwasonthataccountextendedtillFebruary26,1950.
3. On September 20, 1950 the Government Company made a demand
forpaymentofanenhancedrateof421/2%overthebasicratesstipulatedundertheoriginalcontract.Thisclaimwasmadeonfivegrounds:
1.thattherewasasubstantialdeviationinthenatureofworkofwhichthedetailedworkdrawingsweresuppliedtotheGovernment
Companyafterthedateofthecontract.Theworkinvolvedwasofacomplexnaturerequiringhighlyskilledlabour,andthatadditional
labourandmaterialsnotcoveredbythecontractrateswererequired;
2.
thattherewasgreatincreaseinthepriceofmaterialsandlabouronaccountofundueprolongationoftheperiodofwork;
3.thattherewasincreaseinthecostoftransportationonaccountofriseinthepriceofpetrolandincreaseinrailwayfreight;
4.thattheGovernmentofIndiaenteredintoothercontractsincidentaltotheconstructionoftheSindriFactoryatsubstantiallyhigherrateswhichdirectly
affected the cost of labour and materials of the
GovernmentCompanywhohadtocompetewiththeothercontractors;
5.
thatadditionalworkorderedtobedoneinvolvedinmanyinstancesquantityofworkseveraltimestheworksetoutinthecontract.
4.
ByhisletterdatedSeptember13,1950,theAdditionalChiefEngineer
rejectedtheclaim.InSeptember1954thedisputesrelatingtotheclaimforriseincostofmaterialandlabourduetodelayinsupplyingdetailedworkdrawings,theclaimarisingfromriseinpriceofpetrolandforincreaseinthecostofmaterialandlabourduetoothercontractorsworkingonthesite,werereferredtoarbitration,butnottheclaimsforrevisionofratesduetocomplexnatureoftheworkandincrease
in the quantity of work. The arbitrator rejected the claims of
theCompanyinrespectofthematterswhichwerereferred.
5.
ThereaftertheGovernmentCompanyfiledasuitonAugust9,1956,against
theUnionofIndia,for
adecreeforRs.3,62,674/9/6beingtheamountclaimedattherateof421/2%abovethecontractrate,inthealternative,adecreefor
Rs.2,44,000/ being the amount claimed at the rate of 28.1% above
thecontract rate as recommended by the Executive Engineer, and in
the
furtheralternative,adecreeforRs.1,36,222/attherateof18.17%abovethecontractrateascertifiedbytheSuperintendingEngineer.
TheUnionofIndiacontended,interalia,thattheclaimwasbarredbythelawoflimitation.
6. TheTrial Court held that theclaimwasnot barredby the
lawof
Asmita 23/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..24.. ARA6/07
limitation and decreed the claim for Rs. 1,36,222/ as certified
by theSuperintending Engineer. Against the decree passed by the
Trial Court
theGovernmentCompanyaswellastheUnionofIndiaappealedtotheHighCourt.
7. Before the High Court, in support of the appeal only the plea
oflimitationwaspressedonbehalfoftheUnionofIndia.IntheviewoftheHighCourttheclaimwasgovernedeitherbyArticle56orbyArticle115oftheFirstScheduletotheLimitationAct,1908,andthesuitnothavingbeenfiledwithinthreeyearsofthedateonwhichtheworkwasdoneandinanyeventofthedateon
which the claimwas rejected was barred. The Government Company
hasappealedtothisCourtwithcertificate.
8. TheGovernment
Companyhadundertakenunderthetermsofthecontracttodospecificconstructionworkat"basicrates".TheEngineerinchargewasbythetermsofClause12oftheagreementcompetenttogiveinstructionsforwork
not covered by the terms of the contract, and it was provided
thatremunerationshallbepaidattheratefixedbytheEngineerinchargeforsuchadditional
work, and in case of dispute the decision of the
SuperintendingEngineer shall be final. It is common ground that the
claim made by
theGovernmentCompanywasnotcoveredbythearbitrationagreement,andonthataccount
it was not referred to the arbitrator. The claim in suit related to
therevisionofratesduetothecomplexnatureoftheworkandduetoincreaseinthequantity
of work and also grant of contracts to other competing parties
atsubstantiallyhigherratesandotherrelatedmatters.
9. Article56oftheFirstScheduletotheIndianLimitationAct,
1908,prescribesaperiodofthreeyearsforasuitforthepriceof,
workdonebytheplaintiff for the defendant at his request, where no
time has been fixed
forpayment,andtheperiodoflimitationcommencestorunfromthedatewhentheworkisdone.AsuitisgovernedbyArticle56ifitarisesoutofacontracttopaythepriceofworkdoneattherequestofthedefendant.Theclaiminthepresentcaseisforpaymentatanadditionalrateoverthestipulatedrateinviewofchangeincircumstances,andnotforpriceofworkdonebytheGovernmentCompany.ItistruethatadditionalworkwasdoneattherequestoftheEngineerincharge,buttheclaiminsuitwasnotforthepriceofworkdonebutforenhancedratesinviewofalteredcircumstances.
10.
Article115oftheFirstScheduletotheLimitationActisaresiduaryarticledealingwiththeclaimforcompensationfor
thebreachofanycontract,expressorimplied,notinwritingregisteredandnotspeciallyprovidedfor,intheFirst
Schedule. The period of limitation in such cases is three years and
itcommences to runwhen thecontract is broken, or where there
aresuccessivebreacheswhenthebreachinrespectofwhichthesuitisinstitutedoccurs,orwherethe
breach is continuing when it ceases. The suit filed by the
Government
Asmita 24/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..25.. ARA6/07
Companyisnotasuitforcompensationforbreachofcontractexpressorimplied:itisasuitforenhancedratebecauseofchangeofcircumstances,andinrespectofworknotcoveredbythecontract.TheadditionalworkdirectedbytheEngineerincharge
when carried out may be deemed to be done under the terms of
thecontract:buttheclaimforenhancedratesdoesnotariseoutofthecontract:itisinanycasenotaclaimforcompensationforbreachofcontract.
11.
TheclaimisthereforenotcoveredbyanyspecificarticleundertheFirstSchedule,andmustfallwithinthetermsofArticle120.TheSolicitorGeneralappearingonbehalfoftheUnionofIndiacontendedthateveniftheclaimfallswithin
the terms of Article 120 of the Limitation Act, it was barred, for,
theGovernmentCompanyhadinthesuitmadeaclaimforworkdonemorethansixyearsbeforetheinstitutionofthesuit.CounselsubmittedthatunderArticle120theperiodoflimitationcommencestorunfromthedateonwhichthedefendantobtainsthebenefitoftheworkdonebytheplaintiff.ButunderArticle120oftheLimitationActtheperiodofsixyearsforsuitsforwhichnoperiodoflimitationisprovided
elsewhere in the Schedule commences to run when the right to
sueaccrues.Inourjudgment,thereisnorighttosueuntilthereisanaccrualoftherightassertedinthesuit,anditsinfringement,oratleastaclearandunequivocalthreattoinfringethatrightbythedefendantagainstwhomthesuitisinstituted;Bolov.KokanandOrs.
24. ThelearnedcounselsubmitsthattheSupremeCourthadconsidered
Article120oftheLimitationAct,1908andArticle56whicharecorrespondingto
Article113andArticle18 to the first schedule to LimitationAct
1963. It is
submittedthatafterconsideringtheseArticles,theSupremeCourtheldthatthe
periodof6yearsforsuitsforwhichnoperiodoflimitationisprovidedelsewhere
intheSchedulecommencestorunwhentherighttosueaccrues.Itisisheldthat
therewasnorighttosueuntiltherewasaccrualoftherightassertedinthesuit,
anditsinfringement,oratleastaclearandunequivocalthreattoinfringethat
rightbythedefendantagainstwhomthesuitisinstituted.Itissubmittedthat
theSupremeCourthasheldthatinasuitforenhancedratebecauseofchangeof
Asmita 25/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..26.. ARA6/07
circumstances, and in respect of worknot coveredby thecontract,
claim for
enhancedratedidnotariseoutofcontractandwouldbethusnotgovernedby
Article56correspondingtoArticle18underLimitationAct1963butwouldbe
coveredbyArticle120(correspondingtoArticle113underLimitationAct1963).
Thelearnedseniorcounselthus,submitsthatthefactsofthiscaseareidenticalto
the factsbefore theHonourbleSupremeCourt incaseof
GannonDunkerley
(supra)andthusprinciplesoflawlaiddownbytheSupremeCourtaresquarely
applicabletothefactsofthiscaseandarebindingonthisCourt.
25.
ThelearnedseniorcounselalsoplacedrelianceupontheJudgmentof
RajashthanHighCourtincaseofStateofRajasthanVs.RamKishan(AIR1977
Rajasthan165),JudgmentofAllahabadHighCourtincaseofStateofU.P.v.
ThakurKundanSingh(AIR1984Allahabad161),JudgmentofGujratHigh
CourtincaseofStateofGujratVs.PirojshaWadiareportedin17GujratLaw
Reporter638;
bywhichvariousHighCourtshavetakenasimilarviewwhich
hasbeentakenbytheHonourableSupremeCourtincaseofGannonDunkerly
andOrs(supra).
26. Perusal of theawardindicatesthatbeforethearbitral tribunal,
the
submissionofthecontractorwasthatdisputecouldstartonlyafterrejectionof
Asmita 26/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..27.. ARA6/07
theclaimbytheGovernment.Itwassubmittedthattheclaimswerependingfor
decisionandthuscauseofactionstartedonlyafterdecisionwasfinallytakenby
theGovernment.Itwassubmittedthatlimitationcommencedfromthedateon
whichcauseofactionhadaccrued.
27.
Thearbitraltribunalhasheldthatallthoseclaimseventhoughthere
was specific recognisable period of start of incurring of the
loss, the same
continuedsincethenduringthecurrencyofthecontract,includingtheextended
periodatleastforClaimNos.1and2.MajorityofthelossincurredforClaimNos.
3,4and5wasknownwhentheitemswerenearlycompletebyMarch1998.Itis
heldthatinrespectofClaimNos.1and2,thelosscontinuedtillthecurrencyof
thecontract.
ThearbitraltribunalthenheldthatforClaimNos.3,4and5,first
referencetoEngineer'srepresentative(ExecutiveEngineer)wasmadeinFebruary
1997andOctober1996andongettingnodecisionwithin60days,thecontractor
couldhavereferredthedisputetohigherlevelandthentothe'Engineer'asper
provisionsofClause66andinvokedthearbitrationwithin220daysatthemost.
Itisfurtherheldthatthiscoursewasnottakenbythecontractorforthereasons
bestknowntohim.Thecontractormighttaketheshelteroftheword'may'inthe
contractormayappealwithin30daystoEngineer'byclaimingthatitwasnot
obligatoryforhimtoappealincasenoreplywasgiventheExecutiveEngineer.
Asmita 27/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..28.. ARA6/07
Inspiteofsuchfindingrenderedbythearbitraltribunal,itisheldthatthecause
ofarbitrationwouldbecauseofactionandtimeoflimitationshouldberecorded
fromthedatefor respectiveclaims. Thetribunal held that all
fiveclaimsin
questionwerenottimebarredonaccountoflimitation.
Itwouldbeusefulto
extracttherelevantparagraphsonthisissuefromthearbitralawardwhichareas
under:
Forreferringthedisputetoarbitration,therehadtobeanarbitrationagreement(clause)andtherehadtobeadispute.
Intheinstantcase,Cl66Settlementofdispute (RTD1/1034) provided for
recourse to arbitration. For existence
of'dispute'therehadtobean'assertion'byoneparty&'denial'bytheotherparty.'Causeofarbitration'aroseintheinstantcasewhenevertherewasrejectionofaclaimbythe
'Engineer'
(ChiefEngineerKoynaProject)(RTD1/38)Rejectionofinactionbythe'Engineer'srepresentative'i.e.ExecutiveEngineer/SuperintendingEngineerdidnot,
however, result into 'causeofarbitration'.
Inwhichcasetheclaimanthadtoapproachthe'Engineer,furnishrequiredevidenceandonrejectionbythe'Engineer'couldinvokearbitration.
Clause 66(b) specifically mentioned that 'Performance under
thecontract shall if reasonably be possible, continue during the
arbitrationproceedings.
Henceclaimantcouldeitherlodgeclaimswiththerespondentandpursuethemfortheirsettlementthroughthe'Employer'bynegotiationsorcouldtaketherecourseto
arbitration by following obligations/requirements
underCl.66culminating into invoking thearbitration. Inall
theclaimstheclaimantpreferredtotaketheearlierrecoursetobeginwithandcontinuedforquitesometime.
TheclaimantapproachedsecretaryIDandDy.ChiefMinisterduringthisperiod.RecoursetoArbitrationwastakenquitelate,aftercompletionoftheworkphysically.
Evenafterreferringsomeoftheirclaimsunderthiscontract totheearlier
Arbitral Panel and getting Award for the same in December 1998,
theclaimant continued to followthe course of negotiations &
pursuations, for thereasonsbestknowntohim.
QuestionnowbeforetheArbitralPanelwaswhethertheclaimshadbecometimebarredbecauseofthisapparentdelayonthepartoftheclaimantinnotinvokingthearbitrationearlyandpromptly.
Theclaimantwassaidtohavebeensufferinglossbecauseofvariousreasonsinrespectofseveralitemsofthecontract,whichresultedintoinitiatingtheclaimsrightfromthebeginningofthecontract
andcontinuedtoincurthelossforcertainperiodsincethenforsomeclaims(No.3,4&5)andtillthecompletionofthecontractforsome(ClaimNo.1).
Asmita 28/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..29.. ARA6/07
LossonaccountofclaimNo.2wassaidtohaveoccurredonlyduringtheextensionperiodandcontinuedtill
completionof thecontract. Theclaimant
couldhavepursuedtheseclaimswiththerespondent forsomereasonable
timebutshouldhavegoneinforsettlementofdisputeasperCl.66eitherwhenitemsfor3claims(3,4&5)weremostlycompletei.e.after3/98orwhenthecumulativelosseswereforeseentobebeyondthecapacityoftheclaimanttopullonwithoutimpairingtheprogressofthecontractedwork,whicheverwasearlier.
IFtheclaimNo.1hadbeenreferredtothearbitration(oreventotheearlierArbitral
panel)claimantcouldhavegotthecompensationintime.ForclaimNo.2,issuecouldhavebeenpursuedvigorouslywiththerespondentsayduringayearorsoaftergettingthefirst
extensionand failing toget favourable response (or partial
response), theclaimantcouldhaveinvokedthearbitration.
Theclaimantinall
thecorrespondencehadbeenmentioningaboutincurringofheavylosses,financialcrunch,heavystrainorfinancialresourcesetc.becauseoftheseclaims.Butapparentlythefollowup/pursuationsforsettlementofclaimswasveryverypoordespiteprovisionofclauseforarbitration.Arbitratorshadhenceobservedduringthethirdmeetingthat'effortsoffollowup&pursuationoftheclaimswouldbeexpectedtoberelatedtotheamountinvolvedintheclaimsbecause,
delayinsettlementofsubstantial
amountofclaimwaslikelytoaffectperformanceofthecontract'.
Itcouldnotbeascertainedfromtherecordorfromthedeliberationsduringthemeetingsastowhythislogicalandeasiercoursecouldnotbetakenbytheclaimant.Claimantscontention/argumentonthispointhadconsistentlybeenthat,withoutrejectionoftheclaimsbythe'Engineer',recoursetoarbitrationwasnotopentothem.Inalltheseclaimseventhoughtherewasspecificrecognisableperiodofstartofincurringoftheloss,thesamecontinuedsincethenduringthecurrencyofthecontract,includingtheextendedperiodatleastforclaimNos.1&2.MajorityofthelossincurredforclaimNos.3,4&5wasknownwhentheitemswerenearlycompleteby3/98.ButforclaimNos.1&2thelosscontinuedtillthecurrencyofthecontract.
Questionthenwas,whatshouldbeconsideredasthestartofreckoningofthetimeoflimitation.ForclaimNos.3,4&5,firstreferencetoEngineer'srepresentative(ExecutiveEngineer)wasmadeinFeb97&Oct96.On
getting no decision within 60 days, the claimant could have
referred
thedisputetohigherlevelandthentothe'Engineer'asperprovisionsofCl.66andinvokedthearbitrationwithinabout200to220daysatthemost.Thiscoursewasnottakenbytheclaimantforthereasonsbestknowntohim.Theclaimantmighttaketheshelteroftheword'may'inthecontractormayappealwithin30daystoEngineer'byclaimingthatitwasnotobligatoryforhimtoappealincasenoreplywasgivenbytheExecutiveEngineer.
Therehavebeencitationsstatingthatthecauseofactionandcauseofarbitrationtobethesameforreckoningthestartoftimeoflimitation.Itwastruethatthe'causeofaction',ifitwasotherthanthe'causeofarbitration'couldnotbepinpointedasaspecificpointoftimeintheactivityoftheexecutionofthecontract
Asmita 29/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..30.. ARA6/07
(includingextensions).Losscontinued,negotiations/pursuationscontinued,workcontinued
but 'cause of arbitration' or invoking the arbitration' were the
onlyspecificeventsinthisactivity.
HencetheArbitralPanelhadcometotheconclusionthat'causeofarbitration'
would be the 'cause of action' and time of limitation should
bereckonedfromthatdateforrespectiveclaims.Henceallthe5claimsinquestionwerenottimebarredonaccountoflimitations.
Onequestionthatrequiredtobeconsideredanddecidedwasthat,shouldtheclaimantprefertodeferanddelaytheactionofinvokingthearbitrationapparentlyfornoreasonorforsomeotherreasonsbestknowntohim,everwhenprovisionofclauseforsettlementofdisputeexistedinthecontractandcontinuedtomaketherespondentsufferbecauseofanyextraliabilityonaccountofsuchavoidabledelay.Arbitralpanelhascometoaconclusionthatclaimantshouldnotbeawardedinterestontheclaimsforpastperiodattherateswhichnormally&reasonablyaclaimantwouldhavebeenentitledto.ItwasdecidedthatforclaimNos.1,3,4&5heshouldbegrantedonlypriceescalationasperTenderformulaeup
to 3132000 (date of completion of the contract period) by treating
thatpaymentforamountoftheseclaimswasmadeonthatdate.From142000tothedateofreferencetoarbitrationforeachclaim,interestonlyat10%(tenpercent)perannumshallonlybepaidontheescalatedamount.
28.
TheDistrictJudgehasdealtwithissueoflimitationinparagraphs35
to37ofitsJudgment.
Thecontractorarguedthatlimitationoftheperiodof
threeyearshadtobereckonedfromthedateoffinalrejectionbythecompetent
authorityi.e.Engineerinthepresentcase.Itwassubmittedthatinrespectof
alltheclaims,arbitrationwasinvokedwithin30daysafterfinalrejectionbythe
EngineerasperClause66Aofthecontract.
Itwassubmittedthatwhenthe
contract wasspreadover for a periodanddamagewas sustainedduring
the
wholeperiod,
thelimitationfortotaldamageswouldcommencefromthedate
when the period of contract ends. It was submitted that the
claim for
Asmita 30/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..31.. ARA6/07
compensationforsuccessivecontinuingbreachesofanycontract,theperiodof
threeyearslimitationwouldbecomputedwhenthebreachceasedtooccur.It
wassubmittedthatdisputecouldstartonlyafterthedenialofanassertion.The
contractorsubmittedthatlimitationwouldnotstartfromthedateofentitlement
ofpaymentbutonwhichtheclaimwasmadebythecontractorandwasrejected
by theGovernment andsuchrejectionwouldbetheaccrual of
thecauseof
action.
Itwassubmittedthattheclaimswerependingfordecisionforyears
together,
thelimitationwouldstartonlyafterthedecisionwascommunicated.
DistrictJudgerenderedafindingthatthecontractorcouldeitherlodgeclaims
with the Government and pursue them for their settlement through
the
Governmentbynegotiationsorbyculminatingintoinvokingthearbitration.It
isheldthatthecontractorpreferredtotakeearlierrecoursetobeginwithand
continuetoquitesometime. ThecontractorapproachedSecretary,
Irrigation
DepartmentandDy.ChiefMinisterduringthatperiodandrecoursetoarbitration
wastakenquitelateaftercompletionoftheworkphysically.TheDistrictJudge
heldthatArticle137oftheLimitationActwouldbeinvokedinthiscase.Relying
uponArticle137,itisheldthattheperiodoflimitationstartswhentherightto
apply accrues under Article137. The District Judge held that the
period of
limitationforcommencinganarbitrationrunsfromthedateonwhichcauseof
arbitrationaccruesi.etosayfromthedatewhenthecontractoracquiredeither
Asmita 31/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..32.. ARA6/07
rightof
actionorrighttorequireanarbitrationtakesplaceuponthedispute
concerned. It is held that cause of arbitration arose when the
contractor
becameentitledtoraisethequestion.TheDistrictJudgeheldthatClaimNos.1,
2,3and5wereinthenatureofextraitemsandnewrateswerenecessitatedby
thevariationinparticularworkorderedbytheGovernment.TheDistrictJudge
held that under Article 55 of the Limitation Act, when the
breach was
continuing,thelimitationofthreeyearscommenceswhenitceases.TheDistrict
Judgefinallyheldthatthecauseofactionwouldcommencefrom25thMay2001
when the claim was finally rejected by the Chief Engineer. In my
view,
Article55couldnotbeattractedinrespectoftheclaimsmadebythecontractor
fortheworkdone.ThelearnedDistrictJudge,however,hasappliedArticle55of
theScheduletotheLimitationActtoalltheclaimswhichshowspatentillegality
onthefactoftheJudgmentofthelearnedDistrictJudge.
29.
ThearbitraltribunalhasrenderedafindingthatinrespectofClaim
Nos.3,4and5,theclaimcouldbesaidtohaveinitiatedwhentheconcerneditems
wereexecutedanditcontinuedtillcompletionofeachsuchitem.
Thearbitral
tribunalalsorenderedafindingthatacontractorcouldhavepursuedClaimNo.2
withtheGovernment for somereasonabletimebutshouldhavegone
infor
settlementofdisputeasperClause66eitherwhenitemsfor3ClaimNos.3,4and
Asmita 32/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..33.. ARA6/07
5weremostlycompletei.eafterMarch1998orwhenthecumulativelosseswere
foreseentobebeyondthecapacityofthecontractortopullonwithoutimpairing
theprogressofthecontractedwork,whicheverwasearlier.Similarlyinrespect
of ClaimNo.2, the arbitral tribunal held that issue could have
beenpursued
vigorouslywiththeGovernment
duringtheyearorsoonaftergettingthefirst
extension and failing to get favourable response or partial
response, the
contractorcouldhaveinvokedthearbitration.Itisfurtherobservedthatthough
thecontractorinallthecorrespondencewereallegingincurringofheavylosses,
financialcrunch,heavystrainetc.,followup/pursuationsforsettlementofclaims
onthepartofcontractorwasverypoordespiteprovisionofclauseforarbitration.
Thelearnedarbitraltribunalobservedthatitcouldnotbeascertainedfromthe
recordorfromthedeliberationsduringthemeetingsastowhythislogicaland
easiercoursecouldbetakenbythecontractor.
30.
Thearbitraltribunalthoughrenderedafindingagainstthecontractor
for gross delay in making a claim and pursuing it, rejected the
plea of the
Government forrejectionoftheclaimsonthegroundoflimitation.
Onone
hand,thearbitraltribunalobservedthattheGovernment
shallnotsufferany
extraliabilityonaccountofavoidabledelayonthepartofthecontractorand
contractorshouldnotbeawardedinterestontheclaimsforpastperiodatthe
Asmita 33/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..34.. ARA6/07
rateswhichnormallyandreasonablyacontractorwouldhavebeenentitledto.
Inmyview,itisclearthattheconclusiondrawnbythearbitraltribunalistotally
inconsistentwiththefindingrenderedbythearbitral tribunal onthe
issueof
limitation. Theissueof limitationhasbeendealt
withwithoutapplicationof
mind.
31.
TheDistrictJudgehasrenderedafindinginfavourofthecontractor
onerroneouspremisethatArticle137oftheLimitationActwasapplicabletothe
claimsmadebythecontractor. In myview,Article55of
theLimitationAct
wouldnotapplyfortheclaimforpriceincreaseinrespectoftheworkcarriedout
undertheprovisionsofcontract.ApplicationofArticle55totheclaimforwork
done by the District Judge, is totally an erroneous and is on
the face of it
perverse.Article137oftheLimitationActappliestotheapplicationsandnotto
theclaims. Inmyview,for invokingthearbitrationclause, the
limitation
providedbytheLimitationActformakingapplicationwill notapply,
butthe
limitationprovidedbythescheduleforinstitutionofasuitwillapply.ThisCourt
hasheldthatthereisnoquestionofprovisionsofArticle137applyinginsofaras
invocation of the arbitration clause and commencement of the
period of
limitationisconcerned.ThisCourtheldthatinrespectoftheclaimforpriceof
extraworkcarriedoutbythecontractor,Article18oftheLimitationActwould
Asmita 34/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..35.. ARA6/07
applyandnotArticle137.Itisheldthatwhenasuitisinstitutedforrecoveryof
thepriceoftheworkdonebytheplaintiffforthedefendant,andwhenthereis
notimefixedforpaymenttobemade,thecauseofactionforinstitutingthesuit
ariseswhentheworkiscompletedandthesuithasbeinstitutedwithinaperiod
ofthreeyearsfromtheaccrualofcauseofaction.Itisheldthatcauseofaction
wouldaccruewhentheworkisdone.AfterconsideringArticle113onwhichthe
contractorhasplacedreliance,thisCourtheldthatthesaidArticlecomesinto
playonlyonfindingthatforinstitutionofasuitfortheclaimwhichwasinvolved
in that matter, there was no period of limitation provided
elsewhere in the
schedule.ItisheldthatonlyonafindingrecordedthatArticle18didnotapply,
Article113couldnotapply.ThisCourtheldthatthoughthelearnedarbitrator
hadrecordedafindingthattheclaimwasnotbarredbylawoflimitation,inthe
entire award there was no reference to any Articles in the
Schedule of the
LimitationAct,whichappliestothatcase.ThisCourtobservedthatsuchfinding
recordedbythelearnedarbitratorwasanimpossibility.
32. Inmyview,refusaltopaytheamountdemandedbythepetitioner,
wouldnotcommencefreshperiodoflimitationwhichhadalreadycommenced.
InviewofSection9oftheLimitationAct,1963,oncetimeisbeguntorun,no
subsequentdisabilityorinabilitytoinstituteasuitormakeanapplicationstops
Asmita 35/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..36.. ARA6/07
it.Oncetimestarts,itdoesnotstop.Limitationisextendedonlywhenthereis
an acknowledgment of liability or part payment. Correspondence
does not
extendtheperiodoflimitation.
33. Itisnotthecaseofthecontractorthattherewasanypartpayment
madebytheGovernment
inrespectoftheclaimsinquestionortherewasany
acknowledgmentofliabilitymadebytheGovernmentinfavourofthecontractor
inrespectofsuchclaims.Merelybecause,therewasinactionand/ordelayonthe
partoftheofficersoftheGovernmentinconsideringand/orrejectingtheclaims
madebythecontractor, limitationwouldnotbeextended.
Thelimitationhad
alreadycommencedwhentheworkwasdoneandthepaymentwasnotmade.It
isnotindisputethattheworkinrespectoftheclaimsinquestionwascompleted
morethanthreeyearspriortothedateofcontractormakingrepresentationtothe
concernedofficersoftheGovernment.
Inmyview,eveniftheofficersofthe
Government
hadnotdecidedtherepresentationand/orclaimofthecontractor
withinthetimespecifiedunderClause66,causeofactionhadnotstopped.
34. In myview, the arbitral tribunal as well as the District
Judgehas
mixeduptheissueoflimitationinmakingaclaimandinmakinganapplication
totheCourtforappointmentofarbitrator.
ThereferencemadebytheDistrict
Asmita 36/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..37.. ARA6/07
JudgetoArticle137andArticle55istotallymisplacedandcontrarytolaw.In
myview,limitationformakingaclaimandlimitationformakinganapplication
forappointmentofarbitratorcannotbemixedup.
35. Perusal of theaward indicates that ClaimNo.1was for
revisionof
ratesdemandedbythecontractoronthebasisthatcertainitemsofworkwhich
were different from those included in BOQ (Bill of Quantities)
items were
requiredtobeexecuted.Itwasthecaseofthecontractorthatthereweresome
extra itemswhererates of
itemcouldnotbederivedfromtheBOQratesby
makingappropriatevariations.
UnderClause51ofthecontract,theEngineer
hadpowerstomakeanyvariationoftheform,qualityorquantityoftheworksor
anypartthereof.Procedureofvaluationofvariationhadbeenspecifiedunder
Clause52 of the contract. Accordingly, the Government had
prepared rate
analysiswith 'labourmarkup'as50%andoverheadandprofitas20%.
The
contractor,howeverdemandedthesameas195%and40%respectively.
The
learnedlearnedarbitraltribunal,intheimpugnedawardallowedthisclaim.
It
wasthepleaoftheGovernmentthatdisputeregardingratesofextra/deviated
itemsstartedwhenthefirstpaymentwasmadepriorto27thJuly1997;whereas
thecontractorhad invokedarbitrationclauseon27th July2000. It is
not in
disputethatthesaidworkwascarriedoutasorderedbytheGovernmentunder
Asmita 37/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..38.. ARA6/07
Clause51 read with Clause52 of the contract. The said work was
thus,
contractualworkasorderedbytheGovernment.Thelimitationformakingsuch
claimforratesofsuchextra/deviateditemswillthusarisewhensuchitemofwrk
wasdonebythecontractor,whichinthiscase,muchpriorto27thJuly1997.In
myview,Article18ofScheduletoLimitationActwouldapplytothisclaimand
not Article113 as sought to be applied by the contractor in the
present
proceedings.ThelearnedarbitratordidnotrefertoanyArticlewhilerejecting
thepleaoflimitationintheimpugnedaward.
36. InsofarasClaimNo.2isconcerned,perusaloftheawardindicates
that the said claim was for compensation for the work carried
out by the
contractor beyond the original stipulated date of completion
which was 19th
March1997.
TheGovernmentgrantedfiveextensionsfortheperiodbetween
20thMarch1997makingthesametermsandconditionsapplicableforthework
carriedoutduringtheextendedperiod.
Thecontractorthus,oughttohave
invoked arbitration clause no sooner such extension was granted
by the
Governmentbymakingthesametermsandconditionsapplicableforthework
carried out during the extended period. The cause of action for
claim for
compensationwouldarisewhenthebreachiscommittedbytheeitherparty.
If
accordingtothecontractor,theGovernmentwasresponsibleforprolongationof
Asmita 38/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..39.. ARA6/07
contractandextensionwasnecessitatedduetosuchreasonsandthecontractor
wasnotboundtocarryoutthebalanceworkonthesametermsandconditions,
cause of action would begin as soon as such breach was committed
by the
Government according to the contractor. The learned arbitral
tribunal,
however,didnotdecidethisissueintheimpugnedawardbutrejectedthepleaof
limitationmerelyonthegroundthattheclaimwasinitiatedon18thMarch1997
i.e the date on which the Government granted extension under the
same
conditions of contract and its effect will start from 20th March
1997 and it
continuedtill actualcompletionofthecontract.
Thelearnedarbitraltribunal
consideredthattheEngineerhadrejectedtheclaimon6thSeptember2000and
thearbitrationwasinvokedon21stSeptember2000,thustheclaimwasintime.
NoArticleofLimitationActhasbeenreferredbythelearnedarbitraltribunal
while dealing with plea of limitation even in respect of this
claim for
compensation.
37. AsfarasClaimNo.3madebythecontractorisconcerned,perusalof
theawardindicatesthatthesaidclaimwasmadeforrevisionofratesforPressure
Shaft Excavation. According to contractor, it encounteredvarious
difficulties
duringtheexcavationsofthePressureShaftssuchaschangedsequenceofthe
work,methodandtiming,physicalobstructionsintheworkduetoworkofother
Asmita 39/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..40.. ARA6/07
agency, variation in rock strata/geological conditions etc.,
which was not
attributabletothecontractor.Accordingtocontractor,inviewofsuchsituation,
theychangedthescopeofitemandthecontractorpreparedrateanalysisforeach
component of the work based on componentwise expenditure. The
learned
arbitraltribunalallowedthisclaim.
38.
Perusaloftheawardindicatesthatthisitemwascarriedoutduring
theperiodbetweenJuly1993toMarch1998totheextentof94%.Thedemand
wasmadebeforetheExecutiveEngineeron10thFebruary1997.Itwasrejected
byExecutiveEngineeron17thJuly2000.
Inmyview,thecontractoroughtto
havemadethisclaimwhenanysuchbreachwascommittedbytheGovernment
resulting in suffering of compensation due to breaches
attributable to the
Government.Thecontractorwasnotboundtowaitbeyond60daysfordecision
oftheExecutiveEngineer.Inthiscase,itisclearthatthecontractorwaitedfor
decision of Executive Engineer for more than three years and
four months.
Limitationoncecommenced,doesnotstop.Thelearnedarbitraltribunalhasnot
referredtoanyArticleofLimitationActwhiledealingwiththistypeofclaim.In
my view, the claim in view of the alleged breaches committed by
the
Government,oughttohavemadewithinthreeyearsfromthedateofalleged
breachandclaimnot havingmadewithin threeyears, was barredby
lawof
Asmita 40/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..41.. ARA6/07
limitation.
39.
InsofarasClaimNo.4isconcerned,perusalofawardindicatesthat
thesaidclaimwasmadeforfixationoftherateonaccountofvariationinthe
itemofTransformerHallArchConcreteduetotheproblemssuchaschangesin
natureofrock,doingadditionalworknotprovidedinthecontract,changesin
sequenceandmethodology,delayinissueofdrawings,increaseinquantitiesetc.,
resultingincontractortoincurextraexpenditurenotcontemplatedintherate
analysis.Thecontractormadethatclaimbywayofcompensationtowardsextra
expensesallegedtohavebeenincurredbyit. Thelearnedarbitral
tribunal
allowedthisclaim.Thedataplacedonrecordintheawardindicatesthatthis
workwascarriedoutduringtheperiodbetweenOctober
1993andFebruary
1994.
ThecontractormadeademandbeforetheExecutiveEngineeron14th
October1996.TheExecutiveEngineerrejectedthisclaimon4thNovember2000.
Arbitrationwasinvokedon1stJune2001.Inmyview,thecontractoroughtto
havemadethisclaimwhensuchworkwasdoneandnopaymentwasmadeto
thecontractorforthesame.Thecontractorwasnotboundtowaitfordecision
ofExecutiveEngineerbeyondtheperiodof60dayswhereas, inthis
case,he
waited fordecisionof theExecutiveEngineer foraperiodof
morethanfour
years.Inmyview,thisclaimwasonthefaceofitisbarredbylawoflimitation.
Asmita 41/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:34 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..42.. ARA6/07
Thelearnedarbitraltribunalhasnotconsideredthesefactsinproperdirection.
40. InsofarasClaimNo.5isconcerned,thesaidclaimwasmadebythe
contractor for fixation of new rate on account of variation in
the item of
TransformerHallexcavation.Itwasthecaseofthecontractorthatexcavationof
horizontalnicheshaddelayedtheworkandcausedextraexpensesduetoother
reasons,suchasstoppageofworkofshotcrete,increaseinquantityofrockbolts,
frequentrevisionofdrawings,additionalworks,reductionandomissionofsome
worksetc.necessitatedappropriatedcompensationinfavourofcontractor.The
learned arbitral tribunal allowed this claim for compensation.
The award
indicatesthatthisworkwasexecutedduringtheperiodbetweenJanuary1993
and September 1995. The contractor made this claim before the
Executive
Engineeron14thOctober,1996whichwasrejectedbytheExecutiveEngineeron
19thSeptember,2000.Arbitrationclausewasinvokedon6thJune2001.Inmy
view, when the work was carried out and payment was not made by
the
Government,causeofactionhadcommenced.Inanyevent,thecontractorwas
notrequiredtowaitforthedecisionoftheExecutiveEngineerformorethan60
dayswhereasforthis
claim,thecontractorwaitedfordecisionforaboutfour
years.Inmyview,theclaimonthefaceofit,isbarredbylawoflimitation.
Asmita 42/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:35 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..43.. ARA6/07
41. In so far as judgment of the Supreme Court in case of
Gannon
Dunkerly(supra)relieduponbythecontractorisconcerned,inmyview,itwas
notthepleaofthecontractorbeforethearbitraltribunalorbeforetheDistrict
JudgethatArticle113oftheLimitationAct(correspondingtoArticle120ofthe
LimitationAct1908)wouldapplytothefactofthiscase.Inmyview,asnosuch
pleawasnotraisedbeforethearbitraltribunalplacingrelianceuponArticle113
corresponding to Article120 of Limitation Act 1908, and since no
finding is
rendered by the arbitral tribunal applying Article113,
contractor cannot be
permittedtoraisesuchpleaforthefirsttimeinthepresentproceedingsunder
Section37oftheActof1996.Pleaoflimitationisamixedquestionoffactand
lawandunlesssuchspecificpleabyplacingrelianceuponArticle113wasfirst
raisedbeforethearbitraltribunal,itcannotbeallowedtoberaisedforthefirst
timeinappealunderSection37oftheActof1996.Iam,therefore,oftheview
thatrelianceplacedbythelearnedseniorcounselappearingforthecontractorin
caseof GannonDunkerley
(supra)isofnoassistancetothecontractorinthe
factsofthiscase.
42.
Inanyevent,consideringthenatureofclaimsmadebythecontractor
i.e.ClaimNos.1to5whichwereallowedbythelearnedarbitraltribunal,itis
clearthattheclaimswereeitherforworkdoneorforcompensationandthus
Asmita 43/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:35 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..44.. ARA6/07
specificArticleforreferringthedisputetoarbitrationwouldbeattractedsuchas
Article18 or Article55 of Schedule of the Limitation Act and
therefore,
Article113cannotbeattracted.Inmyview,thusthefactsofthecasebeforethe
HonourableSupremeCourt in caseof GannonDunkerley
(supra)areclearly
distinguishablewiththefactsofthiscaseandthus,saidjudgmentrelieduponby
thecontractor,withgreatrespect,isofnoassistancetothecontractor.
43. The next submission of Mr Chinoy, the learned senior
counsel
appearingforthecontractoristhatevenifArticle18isapplicabletotheclaims
madebythecontractor, periodof
limitationwouldcommenceonlywhenthe
entireworkisdone.Thelearnedseniorcounselsubmitsthattheclaimsmadeby
thecontractorwerenotfortheentireworkdonebythecontractorbutwasonly
inrespectofsomeitemsfromthescopeofentireworkawardedtothecontractor.
Thelearnedseniorcounselsubmitsthatonlywhentheentireworkiscompleted,
causeofactionwouldariseformakingclaimsevenforitemsfortheworkdone.
It is submitted that if thecontractor is asked to
invokearbitrationclauseon
completionofeachitemindispute,therewouldbemultiplicityofarbitrations
underthesamecontract.
44. MrKumbhakoni, learnedcounsel appearing
fortheGovernmenton
Asmita 44/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:35 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..45.. ARA6/07
theotherhandonthisissueinrejoinder
submitsthatthecontractorhadmade
claimsinrespectofeachitemsseparatelyanddidnotmakeclaimfortheentire
work. It is submitted that even in the earlier arbitration
proceedings, the
contractorhadmadeclaimshavingariseninrespectoftheitemsofthework
done and did not wait till completion of work. The Government
had made
paymentitemwisetothecontractorandthusitcannotbeconstruedthatcause
ofactionwouldariseonlyafterentireworkwasdoneandnotwhenitemsof
workwasdoneinrespectofwhichthedisputehadalreadyarisen.Clause66(A)
andClause66(b)oftheGeneralConditionsofContractreadasunder:
66A)SETTLEMENTOFDISPUTESARBITRATION:
(A)
IftheContractorconsidersanyworkdemandedofhimtobeoutsidetherequirementsofthecontractorconsidersanydrawings,recordorrulingoftheEngineer'sRepresentativeonanymatterinconnectionwithorarisingoutoftheContractorthecarryingoutofworktobeunacceptable,heshouldpromptlyaskthe
Engineer's representative in writing, for written instructions or
decision.Thereupon theEngineer's Representative shall givehis
written instructions
ofdecisionwithinaperiodof60daysofsuchrequest.
Uponreceiptofthewritteninstructionsordecisions,thecontractorshallpromptlyproceedwithoutdelaytocomplywithsuchinstructionsordecision.
IftheEngineer'sRepresentativefailstogivehisinstructionsordecisioninwritingwithinaperiodof60daysofbeingrequestedoriftheContractorisdissatisfiedwiththeinstructionsordecisionoftheEngineer'sRepresentativetheContractormaywithin30daysafterreceivingtheinstructionsordecisionappealupwardstoEngineerwhoshallaffordanopportunitytotheContractortobeheardandtoofferevidenceinsupportofhisappeal.TheEngineershallgiveadecisionwithinaperiodof60daysaftertheContractorhasgiventhesaidevidenceandfurtherdocumentaryprooftheEngineercallsforinsupportofContractor'sappeal.
IftheContractorisdissatisfiedwiththisdecision,theContractorwithinaperiodof30daysfromreceiptofthedecisionshallindicatehisintentiontoreferthedisputetoArbitration,aspertheproceduresetoutinClause66(b)below,failingwhich
Asmita 45/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:35 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..46.. ARA6/07
thesaiddecisionshallbefinalandconclusive.
66(b):ARBITRATION:
Intheeventofanydisputeordifferencearisingoutoforinanywayrelatingtoorconcerning
these presents or the construction or effect of these presents
(thesettlementwhereofhasnotbeenhereinbeforeexpresslyprovidedfor),thesameinrespectofwhichthedecisionisnotfinalandconclusive,shallontheinitiativeofeitherpartytothecontractbereferredtothreearbitrators,onetobeappointedbytheemployer,
thesecondbythecontractor andthirdbytheChairmanCentralWater
Commission in the case of Indian Contractors. In the case of
ForeignContractor,
thethirdarbitratorwillbedecidedbythetwoarbitratorswithin60daysoftheirappointment.
ThetermIndianContractorshallincludeanIndianfirm or a group of firms
or a joint venture eligible for price preference as
adomestictenderer.ThetermForeignContractorshallincludeaforeignfirmoragroup
of firms and joint venture consortia not eligible for price
preference asdomestic tenderer. TheArbitrationshall be conducted
inaccordance with theprovisions of the Indian Arbitration Act 1940
or any statutory modificationsthereof. The arbitration shall be
held at such place and time in India as thearbitrators
maydetermine. If eitherof thepartiesfail toappoint its
arbitratorwithinsixtydaysafterreceiptofnoticefortheappointmentofanarbitratorfromtheotherpartythentheChairman,CentralWaterCommissionshallappointanarbitratoronreceiptoftherequestfromtheaggrievedparty.
AcertifiedcopyoftheappointmentsmadebytheChairmanCWCshallbefurnishedtobothparties.
Thedecisionofthemajorityofthearbitratorsshallbefinalandbindinguponboththeparties.Theexpenseofthearbitratorsshallbepaidasmaybedeterminedbythearbitrators.
Performanceunderthecontract, shallifreasonablybepossible,
continueduringthearbitrationproceedingsandpaymentsduetotheContractorbytheEngineer'srepresentative
shall not be withheld, unless theyare the subject matter of
thearbitrationproceedings.
All awardsshall be inwritingand in case of claims equivalent
toRupees onehundred thousand or more, such awards shall state
reasons for the amountsawarded.
NeitherpartyisentitledtobringaclaimtoarbitrationifitsArbitratorhasnotbeenappointedbythirtydaysaftertheexpirationofthedefectsliabilityperiod.
45.
Perusalofthearbitrationclauseindicatesthatincaseofanydispute,
Asmita 46/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:35 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..47.. ARA6/07
thecontractorwasrequiredtopromptlyasktherepresentativeoftheGovernment
inwriting,forwritteninstructionsordecision.Fromtheperusaloftheclauses,it
is clearthat it contemplatesdispute
tobereferredevenduringthecourseof
executionofworkandthecontractorwasnotrequiredtowaittillcompletionof
the work. Perusal of the arbitrationclause indicates that
thecontractor was
permittedtoreferthedisputestoarbitrationarisingduringtheexecutionofthe
workandsimultaneouslytocontinuetoperformunderthecontractifreasonably
possible.
ThisClauseindicatesthatthecontractorwasnotboundtowaitfor
completionfortheentirework,butcouldhaveinvokedarbitrationpromptlyas
soonasdisputehadariseneveninrespectofitemsofworkoutofentirescopeof
workwere executed. It is not in dispute that even in respect of
the earlier
arbitrationarising under the samecontract, the contractor
hadalreadymade
claimsinrespectofsomeoftheitemsofwork.Iamthus,notinclinedtoaccept
thesubmissionmadebythelearnedseniorcounselappearingforthecontractor
thatthecauseofactionwouldariseonlywhentheentireworkwascompletedby
thecontractorandnotwhenthepaymentwasnotmadeinrespectoftheitemsof
workdoneoncompletionofthatitem.
Inmyview,causeofactionhadarisen
whentheworkwasdoneinrespectoftheitemsofworkdoneandcauseofaction
wouldnotpostponetillthedateofcompletionofentirescopeofworkawardedto
thecontractor.Inmyview,thelearnedarbitraltribunaloughttohavereferredto
Asmita 47/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:35 :::
-
Bom
bay
High
Cou
rt..48.. ARA6/07
therelevantArticlewhichwouldbeattractedforthepurposesofdecidingthe
issueoflimitation,whichisabsentintheimpugnedaward.ThelearnedDistrict
JudgehasmisdirectedbyapplyingwrongArticletothefactsofthiscase.
46.
Theawardisvitiatedandisinconflictwithpublicpolicyontheissue
oflimitation.
ViewtakenbythelearnedDistrictJudgeisalsocontrarytolaw
anddeservestobesetaside.I,therefore,passthefollowingorder.
i) Impugnedorderandjudgmentdated29th June2006passedbythe
learnedDistrictJudge,RatnagiriinArbitrationApplicationNo.44of
2003andtheimpugnedawarddated26th June2003passedbythe
learnedarbitraltribunalaresetasideonthegroundoflimitation.
ii) ArbitrationApplicationNo.44of2003filedbytheGovernment is
allowed.
iii)Appealisdisposedofinaforesaidterms.Thereshallbenoorderasto
costs.
iv) Respondentisdirectedtorefundtheamountwithdrawnintheabove
matterwithinterest@12%perannumfromthedateof withdrawaltill
paymentwithineightweeksofthisorder.
(R.D.DHANUKA,J.)
Asmita 48/48
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2013 13:37:35 :::