- (1.) THE request under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be entertained since it does not appear that there is any live claim to be taken to an arbitral reference.
(2.) THE petitioner furnishes the following facts: i) That the work was completed by the petitioner by or about December, 2001; ii) That the final bill along with third R.A. bill was raised by the petitioner on the respondents on or about April 30, 2002 ; iii) That an interest bill was submitted on August 17, 2004 seeking interest at 15% per annum from January 21, 2002 against the outstanding amount covered by the third R.A. and final bill. Upon a point of limitation being urged, the petitioner refers to a letter dated May 19, 2008 issued by the office of the Howrah Zilla Parishad which, according to the petitioner, would be an acknowledgement of the jural relationship between the parties within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for a fresh period of limitation to be reckoned therefrom. However, the rule in Section 18 of the Limitation Act is that a fresh period of limitation will begin upon there being an acknowledgement within the meaning of that section within the original period of limitation. That implies that there may be several acknowledgements and the period of limitation could be extended several times; but the each time the acknowledgement has to be within the period of limitation for a fresh period of limitation to be counted therefrom. In this case, the third R.A. and final bill was submitted by the petitioner on or about April 30, 2002. For the claim to be kept alive, the petitioner ought to have relied on any acknowledgement within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act that may have been issued within three years from April 30, 2002. Instead, the first acknowledgment that the petitioner refers to is one of May 19, 2008, which is beyond the period of three years from April 30, 2002.
(3.) THERE does not appear to be any live claim which has been indicated in petition which may be carried to a reference. Accordingly AP 1024 of 2011 is dismissed. The petitioner will pay costs assessed at 100 GM to the respondents. A prayer by the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit has been made but the same has been declined since the point of limitation was squarely taken in the affidavit-in- opposition and the petitioner had adequate opportunity to disclose appropriate documents in its affidavit-in-reply. Urgent certified photocopies of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.;