Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. vs Diwan Mundhra Bros Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 24 September, 2012
19. With DMBPL failing to establish that its Claim Nos. 1-A, 3-A, 3-B, 4-
A, 4-B, 5-A and 5-B were within time, those claims ought to have been
rejected by the learned Arbitrator as being barred by limitation. As
already explained by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
Sukumar Chandra Jain and Indian Acrylics Ltd. v. E.I. Du Pont De
Nemours, the allowing of time barred claims would render an Award to
that extent patently illegal and opposed to the public policy of India since
the law of limitation is very much part of the public policy of India.
Consequently, the impugned Award in respect of Claim Nos. 1-A, 3-A, 3-
O.M.P. No. 279 of 2005 Page 9 of 13
B, 4-A, 4-B, 5-A and 5-B is unsustainable in law and is set aside.