UNION OF INDIA Vs. UNION BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal which has lately been assigned to us after remand from the Supreme Court of India. Union of India representing the railway administration is the appellant before us and the appeal is directed against an order dt. May 20, 1983, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellant's application under S.30 read with S.33 Arbitration Act, which was registered as Award Case No. 200 of 1982. The application has been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. In order to appreciate and decide the points at issue it would be necessary to refer to certain facts which may be set out briefly as follows :

(2.) THE respondent, Union Builders, entered into an agreement dt. Dec. 29,1965, with the South Eastern Railway administration for supply and loading of ballast at two stations, namely, Ghatsila and Dhalbhumgarh. THE work under the contract was completed on June 30, 1969, but certain disputes and differences arose between the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the contractor) and the authorities of the South Eastern Railway with regard to certain claims put forward by the contractor. Those claims were put forward in the contractor's letter dt. May 5,1972, and those were set out in 12 items as follows :

(3.) WHEN the arbitration proceeding was pending on August 10, 1976, the contractor put forward a claim of additional amounts on items 3,4,7 and 11 as above and the contractor further proposed to claim interest at 6% with effect from 1-7-1969 to 31-8-1974 assessed at Rs. 3,47,937/- and for further interest from 1-9-1974 until the payment to be assessed by the arbitrators. The additional amounts claimed on items 3, 4, 7 and 11 were Rs. 8,250/-, Rs. 95,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 6,500/-respectively. The sum total of such additional amounts claimed together with the quantified interest of Rs. 3,47,937/- amounted to Rs. 4,62,687/-. Such additional claim was opposed on behalf of the railway administration and the railway administration insisted that the arbitration should stand limited to the reference already made and the arbitration did proceed accordingly.