S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. - (1.) By this appeal, the original respondent in Arbitration Petition No. 466 of 2006 challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th December, 2011. By the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge allowed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act of 1996") filed by respondent-Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited. The result was that the sole Arbitrator's award came to be set aside.
(2.) Since this appeal invokes section 37 of the Act of 1996 and is directed against the order setting aside the arbitral award, we proceed to formally admit it. Filing of paper book is dispensed with as there is an common compilation of the relevant documents placed before us. Since both sides agreed to final disposal of the appeal itself, notice of hearing of the appeal stands dispensed with.
(3.) The only question that arises for our consideration is, whether the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the arbitral award on the ground that the underlying claim of the appellant before us was barred by limitation. At the outset, we must indicate that there is a difference and in law between a reference to arbitration being barred by limitation and even if that is not barred, the claim, in relation to which the reference is made, is barred by limitation. It is only on the latter aspect, that the learned Single Judge feels that the award contains a perverse finding and therefore deserves to be set aside. Hence, only two points arise for consideration before us in this appeal and they are, whether the view of the learned Single Judge that the award grants a time barred claim and is therefore perverse and contravenes the public policy of India, is correct. Secondly, if that is not correct, then, what relief should be granted to the appellant.;