Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S A.M.S.K.Group vs The State Of M.P. & Anr. on 9 February, 2017
Civil Revision No. 2148 / 1999 09/02/2017
None appears for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Seth, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Even though the matter is pending since 1999 and case is being listed consistently for final hearing since last two months non appears for the petitioner, in view of above, we proceed to decide the matter after perusing the record and hearing Shri Amit Seth, Government Advocate appearing for the State.
This revision petition has been filed under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1983, calling in question an award dated 21.07.1999 passed in Reference Case No.17/1998 (M/s. A.M.S.K. Group vs. State of M.P. and another), the reference has been dismissed on account of delay.
As far as the present case is concerned, the facts go to show that petitioner submitted a quantified claim to the tune of Rs.17,85,397/- to the Executive Engineer on 12.07.1995, a copy of this was also given to the Superintendent Engineer, the Final Authority under the Agreement. The Executive Engineer failed to decide the claim, but the final authority, namely the Superintendent Engineer after issuing notice and fixing a date on 16.07.1996 rejected the claim on 26.02.1997 and claiming this to be a cut-off date from which period of limitation as contemplated under Section 7-B(1)(b) of the M.P. -:2:- Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, the claim was filed, which has been rejected. The Tribunal in para 27 dealt with the matter on following manner, which reads as under :
"27. In Ref. Case No.17/98, the admitted facts are that the petitioner submitted his quantified claims to Executive Engineer on 12.7.95 (Annexure 38), its copy was given to Superintendent Engineer, the final authority. Executive Engineer failed to decide petitioner's claims. Petitioner filed appeal before the final authority (Superintendent Engineer) on 16.7.96 (Annexure -44). No doubt, Superintendent Engineer fixed 26.2.97 as the date of hearing after a lapse of six months from 16.7.96, nevertheless in view of our above findings this date has no relevance, thereafter Superintendent Engineer decided petitioner's appeal on 20.3.97. In our considered view, the petitioner does not got a fresh period of limitation of one year from 20.3.97 under clause (b) of sub-sec (1) of Sec. 7-B. The period of limitation for presentation of such a referent petition started from 16.1.97 and expired on 16.1.98, while this reference petition is filed on 6.3.98, Thus, we hold that this reference petition is time barred."
The tribunal is right in holding that the period prescribed for presentation of reference petition started on 16.01.1997 i.e. six months after claim was raised before the Superintendent 2 -:3:- Engineer on 16.07.1996, when the six months period after presentation of claim before the Final Authority, namely the Superintendent Engineer was made on 16.7.1996 and the one year period available would lapse on 16.1.98 and, therefore, the revision petition filed on 6.3.1998 was beyond limitation. The contention of the petitioner that the period should commence from the date of rejection of the claim by the Superintendent Engineer on 26.2.1997 cannot be accepted, as the Division Bench of this Court has interpreted the provisions of Section 7- B of the Adhiniyam in the case of Rajawat and Company Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2005(4) MPLJ 16 and it has been held in para 7 of the aforesaid judgment that the benefit of limitation from the final order cannot be claimed, if final order is not passed within six months, as stipulated in Clause 7-B proviso thereto. Admittedly the claim in question was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and in the light of law laid down in the case of Rajawat (supra) we see no error in the order passed by the learned tribunal warranting reconsideration the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) (Smt. Anjuli Palo)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
ss
3