Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ORDER
Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J.
1. This is an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Jiwnani Engineering Works
Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff herein carried on and still carries on business as Railway Contractor and
Engineer having its office at 75/C, Vivekananda Road, Calcutta. Pursuant to an invitation to tender by
the defendant, the South Eastern Railway, the plaintiff duly submitted a tender for execution of earth
work in formation, bridge works, buildings and other miscellaneous works in connection with the
doubling of the railway tracks from Hijli to Balasore on the east coast of the South Eastern Railway.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff duly executed all the works under the agreement.
Disputes arose and the same were referred to arbitration. The disputes referred contained as it
appears from Annexure-A to the petition claims, inter alia, as follows :
"3. Earthwork in embankment. Final bill prepared by XEN as per actual cross-section vide
pages 2115 to 2135 of M. B. No. 2/BKD/KCP-3,66,923 Cft @ Rs. 76.23 p. per 1000 Cft. Rs.
25,683.44 (This amount should have been Rs. 27,208.24 as per contractor's claim."
2. The arbitrators held sittings on the said disputes and thereafter referred the matter to an Umpire
and the Umpire has made the award on 24th May, 1975 directing the South Eastern Railway to pay
to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 75,802/-and also Rs. 4,312/- on fulfilment of certain conditions. It is the
case of the plaintiff that during the currency of the proceedings before the said Umpire, the plaintiff
found out that it had omitted to make a claim in respect of short payments made in the item of earth
work in formation and filling done between the two banks and shrinkage and other quantities in
slopes. The plaintiff, therefore, wanted to raise a claim of Rs. 88,408/- on that score. The said claim
was sought to be raised by the letter dated 27th April, 1975. The said letter was to the following
effect :
"To
The General Manager,
S. E. Railway/GRC/Cal-43,
Dear Sir.
Sub : Earthwork, Bridgework and turfing in Section 5 under Agreement No. CE/PD/54/64.
Against the above-noted Agreement, we have been paid less with regard to the item of
earth-work-information and filling done between the two banks as well as on account of
Shrinkage.
This quantity comes to 11,59,765 Cft. and in terms of payment dues outstanding comes to
Rs. 88,408/- as per the rates of the agreement and we claim the immediate payment for the
same.
The Railways have further recovered a sum of Rs. 44,226/- in excess on account of recovery
for alleged excess issue and use of cement and we claim for refund of the same.
The Railways having so far not paid us the dues, therefore we claim the interest at 12 per
3. As the General Manager of the South Eastern Railway did not allow or refer the said claim in the
pending proceedings, the plaintiff has now made this application, under Section 20 of the Arbitration
Act.
4. In this application, several contentions were urged in opposition on behalf of the respondent. It
was submitted, firstly, that the claim having not been preferred at the time of the first reference
could not be preferred now. It was also submitted that the present claim was part of the original
claim in respect of which award has been made by the Umpire. It was, then, submitted that the
present application was belated. It would be advisable to deal with the last question first, viz.
whether the claim is belated.
5. On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the work had been completed in or about 1968
and the instant application was made on the 24th May, 1975. It was, therefore submitted that under
Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the present application was belated. Article 137 prescribes a
period of three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. My attention was drawn to the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T. P.
Kunhaliumma, MANU/SC/0323/1976 : [1977]1SCR996 . There, the Supreme Court held that Article
137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to petition or application filed under any Act and
therefore, it was contended by virtue of the aforesaid decision, Article 137 would apply to an
application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and, therefore, the present application was
barred. In this connection, reference must be made to the arbitration Clause 63 which is to the
following effect :
"Clause 63(1). Demand for Arbitration.-- In the event of any dispute or difference between
the parties hereto as to the construction or operation of this contract, or the respective
rights and liabilities of the parties on any matter in question, dispute or difference on any
account or as to the withholding by the railway of any certificate to which the contractor
may claim to be entitled to or it the Railway fails to make a decision within a reasonable
time, then and in any such case, but except in any of the 'excepted matters' referred to in
Clause 62 of these conditions, the contractor, after 90 days of his presenting his final claim
on disputed matters, may demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to
arbitration. Such demand for arbitration shall specify the matters which are in question,
dispute or difference, and only such dispute or difference of which the demand has been
made and no other, shall be referred to arbitration.
(2) Obligations during pendency of arbitration work under the contract shall, unless
otherwise directed by the Engineer, continue during the arbitration proceedings, and no
payment due or payable by the Railway shall be withheld on account of such proceedings
provided however it shall be open for the arbitrator or arbitrators to consider and decide
whether or not such work should continue during the arbitration proceedings."
6 . In view of the aforesaid, on behalf of the petitioner it was urged that the application in this
instant case was not belated because the right to apply to this Court arose on the failure of the
General Manager to comply with the request made by the contractor. That request was made by the
letter dated 7th Apr., 1975 and this application has been made on 9th Dec., 1976. From that point of