PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH. *** Arbitration Case No. 109 of 2006. Date of decision: March 22, 2010. *** M/S Devki Builders Versus Union of India. *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, Chief Justice. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** Present: Shri Alok Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Lakhindervir Singh, Advocate, with Shri Sandeep Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. *** Mukul Mudgal, CJ (Oral) In this petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 as also Arbitration Case No. 113 of 2006, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of an Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties. It is apt to mention here that in both the petition the questions of law and facts are the same and both the petitions have been filed through Jaspal Rai, who is partner in both the firms. However, for the disposal of these petitions, the facts have been taken from Arbitration Case No. 109 of 2006. Upon notice of motion, learned counsel for the respondent put in appearance and controverted the averments made in the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. -2- Arb. Case No., 109 of 2006 A perusal of the agreement shows that demand for arbitration was made by the petitioner by virtue of clause 64(1)(i), which reads as under:- '' Demand for Arbitration.- In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties hereto with regard 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 withholding by the Railway of any certificate to which the contractor may claim to be entitled to , or if the Railway fails to make a decision within 120 days, then in any such case, but except in any of the 'excepted matters' referred to in clause 63 of these conditions, the contractor after 120 days but within 180 days of his presenting his final claim on disputed matters shall demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to arbitration''. The above clause clearly stipulates that demand for arbitration at the highest could be made within 180 days of presentation of final claim. It is not in dispute that final payment was made on 16.04.1998. This payment was released against a certificate given by the petitioner that ''he had no claim against the respondent''. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim for return of the security itself was made under clause 64(1)(i)by the petitioner on 15.04.2002.Even this claim was beyond the period of limitation of three years. Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted this Court to construe the period of 180days as contemplated in the clause with reference to date 15.4.2002.I am unable to agree with the plea of learned counsel for the petitioner,because the claim made by the petitioner was delayed by almost four years after the final payment of the bill. The highest period of 180 days as contemplated in the arbitration clause cannot be extended by raising such a belated demand. Accordingly, I hold that the prayer for appointment of -3- Arb. Case No. 109 of 2006 an arbitrator is beyond time. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. March 22, 2010 (Mukul Mudgal) Malik Chief Justice