GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator in regard to a dispute, which, according to him, has arisen on account of non -payment of a sum of Rs. 1,16,450/ -.
(2.) HOWEVER , after hearing the Counsel for the parties, it is clear that a work -order was issued to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 3,55,800/ - for construction of a canal known as Torai Left Bank Main Canal. This work -order was issued to the petitioner way back in the year 1976 -77 and the same was executed and completed in the year 1979 after certain extensions were granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also received payment of Rs. 3,34,499/ -, which was as per the work executed by him and the last payment that was received by him was on 25th March, 1985, which he claims to have received under protest. Thereafter the petitioner although filed an application for appointment of an Arbitrator, the same got bogged down into departmental enquiries and opinion and finally the respondents did not appoint an Arbitrator, although there was a clause to that effect in the agreement. The respondents although failed to appoint an Arbitrator, the petitioner did not file any application for appointment of an Arbitrator, but filed a writ petition in the High Court for the reasons best known to him, which ultimately was dismissed, granting liberty to him to take recourse to Clause 23 of the agreement for appointment of an Arbitrator. Thereafter he also seems to have gone one step ahead for appointment of an Arbitrator, but he did not file an application for appointment of an Arbitrator before the High Court. He, however, had filed a suit before the District Court claiming payment in terms of the agreement, which was dismissed on the ground that there is a clause for arbitration by appointment of an Arbitrator.
(3.) THE petitioner finally filed this application for appointment of an Arbitrator in the year 2007 claiming a sum of more than Rs. 56 lacs which, on the face of it, appears to be exorbitant as the work -order awarded to the petitioner was for Rs. 3,55,800/ -, against which he has already received payment of Rs. 3,34,499/ - way back in the year 1985. Yet if he was dissatisfied, there was a clause in the agreement to seek appointment of an Arbitrator, but the petitioner travelled one forum to the other and finally filed the application for appointment of an Arbitrator before this Court in the year 2007. Thus, this application is time barred by more than 22 years under Section 43 (1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, which clearly lays down that the Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in Court, Section 43(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, no doubt, also incorporates a provision to the effect that where an arbitration agreement to submit future disputes to arbitration provides that any claim to which the agreement applies shall be barred unless some step to commence arbitral proceedings is taken within a time fixed by the agreement and a dispute arises to which the agreement applies, the Court, if it is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case undue hardship would otherwise be caused, notwithstanding that the time so fixed has expired, may on such terms, if any, as the justice of the case may require, extend the time for such period as it thinks proper.;