D.D.A vs Sunder Lal

Mukul Mudgal, J.—This appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.2.1997 passed in a petition u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The main grievance of learned Counsel for the appellant appears to be in respect of claim No. 4 for Rs. 4,20,000/-. Counsel submits that the said claim was sought to be raised on 12.8.95, more than four years after having earlier invoked the arbitration clause by the letter dated 15.11.1991.

We are in agreement with the plea of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge was not justified in referring the additional claims after a prolonged delay subsequent to the invocation dated 15.11.1991. The additional claims raised on 12.8.1995 are ex facie time barred and cannot be said to be live. There is in fact no appearance on behalf of counsel for the respondent to explain the delay of four years, and therefore, it is clear that the additional claims raised at the stage of final arguments before the Arbitration hearing the claims of the respondent under the same contract were not for a legitimate purpose of adjudication of live claims. No reason has been given by the respondent as to the cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and, therefore, is accordingly set aside.

The appeal stands disposed of.