AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant and submits, impugned order dated 24th January, 2020, was made by the Court below in setting aside award dated 14th March, 2014. He submits, two grounds were erroneously accepted by said Court. First is that the arbitrator misconducted himself in adjudicating the plea of respondents that his client’s claims were barred by limitation. Second is that there was objection raised by respondents in taking technical assistance from a person of his client.
He submits, it will appear from the award that there was analysis made of, inter alia, clauses 52 and 56 of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) for the arbitrator to conclude that his client had a live claim. Clear provision in clause 52 was that upon preparation of final bill, within six months thereafter, admitted amounts were to be paid. His client had 90 days thereafter, to either accept the employer’s position on the disputed amounts or challenge the same for adjudication in terms of the contract, by reference to arbitration. On going through the evidence the tribunal found that final bill had not been prepared, hence, and hence came to conclusion that his client had a live claim.
On the second point, Court requires the objection put in by the employer, regarding technical assistance rendered to the tribunal. Appellant will file additional affidavit disclosing the objection.
Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondents-employer.
List on 18th April, 2022.
.........................................