- (1.) AN agreement was entered into between the parties on 28.02.1958 for execution of certain civil work. Disputes arose between the parties in relation to the said agreement and the Respondent -contractor sought appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 25 of the agreement. In December, 1961 the contractor filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing the agreement and appointment of an Arbitrator. After the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Board) filed its written statement, the petition under Section 20 filed by the contractor came to be dismissed for default. Even a restoration application was dismissed. On 24.08.1966, a fresh application for restoration was file which was allowed on 16.01.1968. The case was again dismissed on 27.03.1968 and an application for restoration was filed on 22.04.1968. The case was restored on 18.01.1981. On 16.04.1986, an order was passed for filing the agreement in the Court to enable the court to appoint an Arbitrator. On 23.09.1986, the Additional District Judge, Gwalior dealing with this case passed an order appointing President of the Cantonment Board, Gwalior as an Arbitrator in terms of Clauses 25 of the agreement. This was followed by several changes of the Arbitrators. Ultimately, on 10.12.1997, Mr. R.P. Tripathi was appointed as Arbitrator. Mr. R.P. Tripathi made his Award on 10.09.1998. The Respondent -contractor applied for making the Award rule of court. On 12.2.1999, the court passed an order making the Award rule of court and a decree in terms of the Award was passed. The Respondent -contractor applied for execution of the decree on 14.10.1999. Notice thereof was issued to the Board. On 24.11.1999, the Board appointed one Mr. M.P. Agrawal as its advocate and requested him to intimate the status of the case. On 7.12.1999, the advocate applied for certified copy of the decree. The copy was ready on 23.6.2000 and was taken delivery of by the advocate. The appeal was filed on the same day. However, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The present appeal is directed against the said judgment and decree of the High Court.
(2.) WE have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the parties on all the issues involved, including that of condonation of delay. On the question of condonation of delay, we find that there is justifiable explanation given by the Board to make out the case for condonation of delay. It has been submitted on behalf of the Board that it was not having knowledge of proceedings which took place in the trial court on the question of making the Award rule of Court. Their advocate did not keep them informed about the proceedings. Ultimately, on the execution application being filed, they took steps to appoint another advocate who informed them about the position of the case and applied for certified copy. The appeal was filed on the day the certified copy was made ready and available to the Board. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it to be a fit case for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the impugned order of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of being barred by limitation is accordingly set aside. Since it is an old matter where the proceedings were started in the year 1961, we think it appropriate to hear and dispose of the case on merits as well instead of remanding the case to the High Court.
(3.) COMING to the merits of the matter our attention has been drawn to the copy of the Award on record. Claims No. 1 to 7 are for small amounts. The first claim is for Rs. 9215.37 p on account of work done under the contract which has been allowed by the Arbitrator. Rest of the claims are for very small amounts except claim No. 7 which is for supply of materials for Rs. 11353/ -. The said claim has also been allowed by the Arbitrator. The total amount allowed under claim Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 (Claim No. 6 has been declined) comes to Rs. 26513.37p. Under claim No. 8 the contractor claimed interest on due payments at rates fixed by the Reserve Bank of India on Bank lending sand loss of business. The claim under this head was for Rs. 55,45,223.00p. On this claim the Arbitrator has observed as under: Looking to the justified claims of the claimant and pendency of the matter since 1958 and court's order for appointment of Arbitrator at the distant date, I consider it just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 25 lacs (Twenty five lacs only) in full and final settlement of the claim. The above sum has been awarded looking to the totality of the circumstances and material on record. The above sum includes interest on various claims, due to the claimant, till the date of publishing of this award.;