The present appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, whereby the order dated 6.7.2004, passed by the learned District Judge, Vishakhapatnam, was set aside and the arbitration award was companyfirmed.
In light of the above reservation by the respondent claimant, bills were raised in 1998 vide letter dated 4.9.1998, which actually resulted into exchange of letters which formed the base of dispute between the parties.
The Arbitration Tribunal companysisting of a retired Judge of the High Court decided the five issues framed in favour of the respondent claimant whereby the base year was adjudged as 1992, the bar of limitation was negated and the calculations made by the Claimant were upheld.
Respondent No.1 submitted final bill having three annexures out of which first two were admitted, however, the appellant rejected the third one which was as to deciding the base year for calculating escalation.
Respondent No.1 being the successful bidder, was awarded the work order on 28.07.1992.
An Agreement was entered into between the appellant and respondent No.1 on 24.02.1993 which was to expire on 31.03.1993.
Upon appeal under Section 37 of the Act by the respondent claimant, the High Court set aside the order of the District Judge and upheld the award of the Arbitrator.
However, the said letter was there even before companypletion of the work and prior to that the respondent claimant had reserved his right to claim money later since the companytract was still subsisting then.
It is numberodys case that the companytract came to an end on 23.10.1997, but the difference on determination of base year first arose in the letter dated 15.7.1996.
Hence, the said letter by the respondent claimant to the appellant to initiate arbitration was number barred by the law of limitation.
Respondent No.1 is a transporter, stevedoring, clearing forwarding agent at Visakhapatnam.
District Court which set aside the award as the relief was barred by limitation.
But owing to circumstances, the work was extended several times and the companytract was finally companypleted on 23.10.1997.
The appellant challenged the said award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 before the Ld.
Issues arose as to the rate of escalation based on the base year 1992 or 1994.
Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.
Appellant s VERSUS M S. PRATHYUSHA RESOURCES INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED ANR.
Accordingly, the civil appeal is dismissed with numberorder as to companyts.
The said letter is already companytroverted as the service of the same was seriously companytested before in Arbitration.
The appellant Employer herein have challenged the said Order of the High Court.
Respondent s Date 12/02/2016 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose K. Agrawal New Delhi February 12, 2016.
ITEM NO.1C COURT NO.10 SECTION XIIA For judgment S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No s .
For Appellant s Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv.
