IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Arbitration Case No.49 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.9.2009 M/s Shekhar Construction Co. -----Applicant/Petitioner Vs. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board & Ors. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL Present:- Mr. Vibhav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondents. --- ORDER: 1. This application has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. 2. Case of the petitioner is that work of repair of roads was allotted to it on 29.10.1999 and an agreement dated 22.12.1999 was executed between the parties. The work was completed in October, 2000 but the payment was not made. In terms of Arbitration Clause 25-A in the agreement dated 22.12.1999, the applicant called upon respondent No.1 for appointment of an arbitrator vide letter dated 17.9.2007, but the Arbitration Case No.49 of 2008 arbitrator having not been appointed, this application has been filed. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1, stand taken is that the work was not executed as per the agreement and penalty of Rs.60,000/- was imposed vide letter dated 7.7.2000. Vide letter dated 10.8.2000, the petitioner was called upon to complete the work, which it failed to execute. Notice calling upon respondent No.1 to appoint arbitrator was issued only on 17.9.2007 while the cause of action had accrued in the year 2000 itself. The claim was barred by limitation. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that claim of the applicant was beyond the period of three years from the date of accrual of cause of action and was, thus, barred by limitation. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Visakhapatnam Port Trust v. Continental Construction Company 2009(4) SCC 546. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the claim was within limitation as the petitioner issued number of letters and no final order was passed and in such a situation, the limitation will commence from the date of final notice. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab State and others v. Dina Nath (2007) 5 SCC 28. 7. On perusal of the application, I find that there is no averment that after 2000, any letter was sent except letter dated 2 Arbitration Case No.49 of 2008 8.7.2007, after a gap of more than seven years. In such a situation, the judgment relied upon on behalf of the petitioner in Punjab State and others v. Dina Nath (supra) is not applicable while the judgment relied upon on behalf of the respondents in Visakhapatnam Port Trust(supra) applies. Claim of the applicant is barred by limitation. 8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. September 11, 2009 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ashwani JUDGE 3