FAO No.737 of 2008 -1 - IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.737 of 2008 Date of decision : 28.4.2009 Bharat Electronis Limited 405, Industrial Area, Phase-III, Panchkula 134113 through its Deputy General manager H&R Sh.Sudhir Bajaj. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s Satish Kumar Contractor presently located at 2 Sahid Jeeta Singh Nagar, Court Road, Barnala, Distt.Sangrur Punjab, through its Proprietor. ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.D.K.Singal, Advocate for the respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.11.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Panchkula whereby Objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1896 (for short `the Act') have been dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent was allotted work of construction of Officers Club Building, Community Centre and Creche building. After the completion of work, the respondent submitted the bills to the tune of Rs.5,36,896.30P against which the appellant paid a sum of Rs.1,34,224.07P on the ground that completion FAO No.737 of 2008 -2 - report has not been obtained by the respondent. This led to a dispute between the parties which was referred to the sole Arbitrator for decision, who vide his award dated 23.2.2005, awarded a sum of Rs.3,73,781.54P to the respondent to be paid by the appellant by 31.3.2005. It was also observed that if the appellant failed to make payment as ordered then the awarded amount shall carry simple interest @ 18% per annum from the date of award till the date of final payment. Aggrieved against the award of the Arbitrator, the appellant filed Objections under Section 34 of the Act in which it was, inter alia, averred that claim of the respondent is highly belated because delay of three years' has not been explained in terms of the provisions of Section 43 of the Act and that the claim was not maintainable as the respondent failed to comply with the Clause of general terms and conditions of the contract as the completion certificate as required by Clause 6.4 was not taken by the respondent. As such, the respondent was not entitled to any payment whatsoever. The award was thus, challenged calling in question locus standi of the respondent, jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and bar of limitation. The learned Court below found that the point of limitation recorded by the Arbitrator is final and cannot be interfered with and jurisdiction of the Court is limited to examine whether any ground enjoined under Section 34 of the Act has been made out or not. It was further held that no evidence was led by the appellant in this regard, therefore, award dated 23.2.2005 was upheld. Sh.Amar Vivek, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the final bill was made to the Contractor on 11.3.1998 and the limitation for FAO No.737 of 2008 -3 - filing any claim and making any reference to the Arbitrator was to be reckoned from 11.3.1998 upto three years in terms of the provisions of Section 43 of the Act. It was contended that since the Arbitrator was appointed on 21.3.2002 after the lapse of a period of more than three years from the date of acceptance of final bill, therefore, the date of entering upon the Reference by the Arbitrator after the period of limitation was clearly barred by limitation. In reply to this contention, counsel for the respondents submitted that vide letter dated 26.4.1999, the respondent had requested the appellant to send panel of Arbitrators so that the matter could be referred for arbitration. Thus, the matter was raised immediately after the final bill which is alleged to have been issued on 11.3.1998. Faced with the reply of learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the appellant did not further raise the issue of limitation before this Court. He, however, submitted that the respondent had accepted the measurements as full and final therefore, there is no cause of action left with them which could have been made the subject matter of arbitration. In this regard, counsel for the respondent has argued that firstly the measurement book was not subject matter of Arbitration proceedings and secondly the Arbitration agreement continues notwithstanding no demand certificate. In this regard, counsel for the respondent relied upon the following decisions: i) Chaiman and M.D., N.T.P.C. Ltd. Vs. M/s Reshmi Constructions Builders and Contractors AIR 2004 SC 1330 ii) Ambica Construction Vs. Union of India 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 257 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I found that the question of limitation since not pressed further by learned counsel for the appellant does not survive and insofar as the second point is concerned FAO No.737 of 2008 -4 - that notwithstanding final bill, arbitration dispute can be raised is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions cited by the counsel for the respondents. Thus, I do not find any error in the order of the learned Court below and as such, the present appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 28.4.2009 JUDGE Meenu