R.S. Builders vs Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.

Vijender Jain, J.—This is a petition u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act filed by the petitioner. Already certain disputes between the parties were referred for arbitration by the respondents for the first time on 17/21.1.1981. Mr. N. Krishna Murthy was appointed as the Arbitrator. Then again on account of certain additional claims preferred by the petitioner a reference was made to the same Arbitrator on 19.5.1982. The petitioner further raised additional disputes for which we are concerned in the present petition regarding the refund of security deposit and the final bill. The respondent vide their letter dated 30.12.1982 referred these additional claims over and above the disputes and claims already referred to the arbitrator. Mr. N. Krishna Murthy resigned and did not make award and, Therefore, Mr. Harish Chandra was appointed as an Arbitrator by the respondent. On Mr. Harish Chandra''s refusing to enter the reference the respondent appointed Mr. Sarvesh Chandra. As Mr. Sarvesh Chandra could not decide the matter he resigned and, Therefore, vide letter dated 6/10.9.1990 Mr. V. Nainani was appointed the Arbitrator. By this letter the respondent did not refer those two disputes which were already referred by the respondent regarding security refund and final bill as has been referred in the letter dated 30.12.1982.

Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that these two disputes would be hit by the provisions of the Limitation Act, and Therefore the same could not be adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator. I have gone through the application filed by the respondents before the Arbitrator dated 13.5.1983 and I find no such plea has been taken by the respondents. They have simply dealt with that the claims are not maintainable. When the respondents on their own have referred the matter regarding these two claims of the petitioner as far back as in 1982 and if on account of the Arbitrator not making the award from 1982 till date, the petitioner cannot be held responsible on that account. However, if at the relevant date when originally there two claims were referred to the Arbitrator in 1982 whether they were barred by limitation or not would be open to be decided by the Arbitrator.

In view of above discussion, I direct respondent No. 2 to refer these disputes for adjudication to the Arbitrator. Petition is accordingly disposed of.