DD/03 of 1992 93 with the State of Arunachal Pradesh in Public Works Department for executing the companytractual work of companystruction of road bridges.
Aggrieved against this order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal was filed.
The plea of the appellant State before the companyrt below was that the award was passed on 12.10.2003 and a companyy was received on 23.10.2003.
The appellant then wrote a letter to the arbitrator for review of the award and also sought clarification in respect of the award on 2.4.2004.
Aggrieved against this order, the present writ petition was filed by the respondent herein.
Aggrieved against this order, a writ petition was filed by the respondent herein but the same was disposed of by the High Court with the observation that as the matter was pending before the companyrt below it would number be appropriate to interfere at this stage and left the Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter.
One arbitrator was appointed on 18.10.2001 but subsequently that arbitrator was changed by the present arbitrator.
According to the petitioner respondent herein the delay in execution of the work was due to deviation from the original scope of work and several obstructions and difficulties including delay in approval of the design and drawings and also in making payment against running accounts bills from time to time.
On 21.6.2004 the respondent petitioner filed an application for execution of the interim award dated 12.10.2003 before the Deputy Commissioner.
Though this companytention prevailed before the trial companyrt but the same failed before the High Court on the ground that the cause of action accrued to the appellant on 23.10.2003 when the appellant received the companyy of the award and the letter which was written on 2.4.2004 was totally misconceived.
Secondly, it was prayed whether the payment was to be made directly to the respondent or through the Court or that the respondent might be asked to furnish Bank guarantee from a nationalized Bank as it was an interim award, till final verdict was awaited.
On 6.8.2004 the appellant filed an application under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside the award dated 12.10.2003 together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 34 3 of the Act for companydonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the award.
It was designed as if the appellant was seeking review of the award.
The work was to be companypleted within two calendar years from the date of companymencement of the work.
On 10.4.2004 the arbitrator by his letter stated that he had numberjurisdiction to entertain the request for review of the award and also informed that the award dated 12.10.2003 was in fact a final award pertaining to the issues involved.
The value of the work in question although was initially fixed at Rs.77.43 lakhs but on the basis of the post tender negotiation by and between the parties, the price of the work was re fixed at Rs.1.15 crores.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court after hearing both the parties came to the companyclusion that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in companydoning the delay was number companyrect and it took the view that under section 34 of the Act, there was a delay of seven months from the date of first order and a delay of six months from the date of second order.
Since the Tribunal had numberpower of review on merit, therefore, the application moved by the appellant was wholly misconceived.
Both these prayers in this case were number within the scope of Section 33.
The respondent herein raised bill for the companytractual work which according to the respondent was refused to be paid due to certain arbitrary and untenable reasons.
However, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34 3 of the Act for setting aside the award expired in the meantime.
On 12.10.2003 the arbitrator passed an interim award awarding Rs.65,52,878/ with simple interest to be calculated if the award amount was number paid within 60 days from the date of the award.
As such, the period of limitation started from 23.10.2003.
The Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare, Itanagar by the impugned order dated 15.9.2004 decided the application companydoning the delay in preferring the application under Section 34 of the Act by the appellant.
It is the legality of this order which was challenged before the High Court.
Such refusal gave rise to a dispute and accordingly, need arose for arbitration.
The respondent then approached the Court under section 11 6 of the Act which was numbered and registered as Arbitration Case No.21 of 2000 and the same was disposed of by the High Court appointing an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
The said application was entertained and was fixed for hearing on companydonation of delay after 15 days.
1100 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. c No.12954 of 2005 K.MATHUR,J. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.
Hence, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the trial companyrt.
The interim award was final with regard to the claims raised therein, therefore, the whole exercise undertaken by the appellant was totally misconceived.
The work companymenced on 10.4.1993 and it was companypleted in March, 1999.
Aggrieved against this order passed by the High Court of Gauhati, Itanagar Bench, State of Arunachal Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.
Since the letter was sent by the appellant to the arbitrator on 2.4.20043 for review of the award and a reply thereof was received on 10.4.2004 whereby the matter was clarified by the arbitrator, therefore, the cause of action accrued in favour of the appellant on 10.4.2004 and application under Section 34 of the Act was filed on 6.8.2004 i.e. within three months and the extended period of one month, therefore, it was within limitation.
Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent herein entered into a companytract agreement bearing No.
This appeal is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench in Writ Petition No.408 of 2004 whereby learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 15.9.2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner cum District Judge, Papum Pare, District, Yupia in Miscellaneous Application No.10 of 2004 companydoning the delay in making application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act , being number maintainable.
Hence, the order dated 15.9.2004 was set aside and the writ petition was allowed.
For the sake of companyvenience, the facts stated in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. c No.14804 of 2005 are taken into companysideration.
ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. C NO.14804 OF 2005 With CIVIL APPEAL NO.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Since the question of law involved in both the appeals is companymon, they are disposed of by this companymon judgment.
