Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Ld. counsel for petitioner made following submissions on the point of limitation:

(a) The Claimant in its statement of claim (SOC) has referred to different dates as date of invocation of the arbitration.

The date of invocation of arbitration, as per the petitioner, was 28.06.2019. The petitioner in its Statement of Defence (SOD) mentioned the same. Apart from the Statement of Defence, petitioner took a similar position in its application under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

9. According to petitioner, the date of invocation of arbitration was 28.6.2019, whereas last two bills i.e. RA Bill no. 5 for work order no.1 and RA bill no.2 for work order no.2 are dated 08.10.2015. Therefore, the invocation of arbitration as on 28.6.2019 was beyond the period of limitation of three years.

Ld. Counsel for petitioner further submitted that:

(a) As per the claimant, 5th RA Bill under Work Order No. 1 and 2nd RA Bill under Work Order No. 2 were final Bills which became due in October, 2015. However, the arbitration was invoked much after 3 years, i.e. on 28.06.2019.

12. Perusal of above noted specifically indicate towards intention of respondent seeking appointment of arbitrator if the payment was not cleared by the petitioner. Respondent had specifically and categorically worded his intentions in the letter dated 26.4.2019 for invocation of arbitration and sought appointment of arbitrator within 30 days if the payment was not cleared. In letter dated 7.6.2019, he reiterated with regard to invocation of arbitration referred in his previous letter, in case of non payment of dues by the petitioner. Having not received any response or payment or appointment of arbitrator, subsequent to issuance of letters dated 26.4.2019 and 07.06.2019, seemingly respondent was constrained to notify petitioner vide letter dated 28.6.2019, that in case of no response, he had no option except to approach the appropriate authority under section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Contention of Ld. Counsel for petitioner, therefore, is not sustainable that vide letters dated 24.4.2019 and 7.6.2019, respondent was only seeking payments and had not invoked the arbitration .

15. Although Ld. Arbitrator did mention that he did not find any reason to disbelieve the contention of the respondent, however, Ld Arbitrator also referred to the letter dated 26.4.2019 whereby respondent had requested the petitioner for appointment of arbitrator in case of non payment. Subsequent to the issuance of formal notice dated 28.6.2019, respondent appointed the arbitrator. While accepting the contention of respondent with regard to first date for invocation of arbitration as 26.4.2019, the award of interest w.e.f. 28.6.2019, terming the same as date of invocation of arbitration by Ld. Arbitrator, cannot have the effect of nullifying the earlier observations and the conclusion with regard to first date of invocation of arbitration as 26.4.2019. Similarly, oral testimony of CW1 whereby he conceeded with regard to date of invocation of arbitration as 28.6.2019, ought not be read contrary to the contents of the documents which unerringly point out towards the invocation of arbitration at the first instance in case of non payment by the petitioner vide letter dated 26.4.2019.