Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The learned Single Judge was of the view that since the point of limitation was never raised by the appellant at any earlier point of time, although there were several opportunities for doing so, in a collateral proceeding of this nature the appellant was not entitled to raise the plea of limitation to resist the Award.

8. The learned Judge observed on examination of the several letters as pointed out by both the sides that those letters taken as a whole would go to indicate that even if there was any belated claim from the side of the respondent, for due acknowledgement of the said claim within the period of limitation, it was not open for the appellant to raise the plea of limitation at the subsequent stage.

18. The learned Advocate contends that it was well within the knowledge of the appellant that it duly acknowledged the claim of the respondent within the period of limitation and hence, there was no plea of limitation, at the time of opposing the petition for appointment of Arbitrator, during the entire 101 sittings before the learned Arbitrator, during publication of the interim Award and its payment, during publication of the final Award, during filing of the petition for setting aside of the Award and its hearing and also during the first and second appeal preferred by the appellant to set aside the Award. The learned Advocate contends that this consistent conduct of the appellant clearly indicates that there was unambiguous waiver and acquiescence on the point of limitation from the side of the appellant and at this stage it has been rightly observed by the learned Single Judge that in a collateral proceeding of this nature there was no scope for the appellant to raise the plea of limitation when the Award has reached its finality.

26. In the above factual background, which is totally undisputed, a question arose before the learned Single Judge while disposing of the matter after remand as to whether in the given fact and circumstances and in view of the legal position there was any scope for the appellant to press the point of limitation to resist the decree and the Award. As we have already recorded the observations of the learned Single Judge we do not want to repeat the same, but, it would be suffice to mention in this context that the learned Single Judge after hearing both the sides in the background of undisputed factual position and after considering several decisions cited by the parties came to a clear observation that when the question of limitation was not raised in the main proceeding or even before the Arbitrator at any point of time, the appellant was not entitled to raise such question in a collateral proceeding of the present nature. The learned Single Judge at the same time accepted the stand taken by the respondent regarding interpretation of the several letters which according to respondent was due acknowledgement of his claim by the appellant within the period of limitation and thereby extending the period of limitation for preferring the claim and the respondent, in fact, preferred his claim within that extended period of limitation.

32. We respectfully disagree with the proposition sought to be established by the appellant to challenge the Award in the manner it was done before the learned Single Judge. From the undisputed factual position, we are fully satisfied that the respondent was legally and morally entitled to get remuneration for the additional work done by it. More so, when the same was duly admitted by the Railway Authority as available from several letters lying with the paper book. We also find from record that no allegation had been made regarding the conduct of the Arbitrator at any stage, rather, the Railway Authority itself honoured the interim Award of the Arbitrator by making prompt payment along with interest. Thus, after hearing the submissions of the respective parties, we are of the view that in the present facts and circumstances even if there was any delay in preferring the claim or in that matter in filing the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the acknowledgements of the Railway Authority regarding the claim of the respondent within the period of limitation has extended the period of limitation and even if there is any doubt regarding the period of limitation and even if it is held that there was delay in the matter of appointment of the Arbitrator, the error was merely irregular in nature and it was not so fatal that it could vitiate the entire proceeding and the Award and in this regard we rely on the principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Court in the case (supra). Accordingly we are of clear opinion that the plea of limitation at a belated stage in a collateral proceeding of the present nature cannot be entertained and the learned Single Judge rightly rejected such contention.