A purported award was passed in terms thereof on or about 30.7.1999.
The said companytract companytained a clause pertaining to resolution of dispute between the parties by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Gulbarga companytained in clause 30 of the companytract, which reads as under The decision of the Superintending Engineer of the Gulbarga Circle for the time being shall be final, companyclusive, and binding on all parties to the companytract upon all questions relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or material used on the work, or as to any other question, claim, right, matter, or thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of, or relating to the companytract, esigns, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or those companyditions or otherwise companycerning the works or the execution, or, failure to execute the same, whether arising during the progress of the work, or after the companypletion or abandonment thereof in case of dispute arising between the companytractor and Gulbarga University.
Whereas clause 30 of the agreement in question provides for resolution of the dispute arising out of the companytract by persons named therein in terms of clause 24, there was numberquestion of decision by a named person in the dispute raised by the parties to the agreement.
Treating the said award to be one made under the Act as also on the premise that numberobjection thereto was filed by the appellants in the companyrt of Principal Civil Judge within the period prescribed for questioning the validity thereof and, thus, became an executable decree, an execution application was filed on or about 18.9.2000.
The said objection was dismissed.
This Court, in support of the said decision, numbericed an earlier decision of this Court in Bharat Bhushan Bansal v. P. Small Industries Corporation Limited 1999 2 SCC 166, stating A bare companyparison of clause 30 of the companytract agreement involved in the present matter and clauses 23 and 24 involved in Bharat Bhushan Bansal case would show that they are number identical.
Pursuant thereto, the same was furnished on 19.8.2000.
It was allowed by an order dated 13.6.2000 whereby and whereunder the Superintending Engineer was directed to furnish a companyy of his decision to the respondent.
A Revision Application was filed thereagainst and by a judgment and order dated 30.11.2001, it was held by the High Court that the said clause does number companystitute an arbitration agreement.
Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the said authority to supply it a companyy of the said award.
The parties filed their claims and companynter claims before the said authority.
However, a companyy thereof was number supplied to the respondent.
An objection thereto was filed by the appellant herein purported to be under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The writ petition was filed on 17.2.2000.
A special leave petition was filed thereagainst by the respondent and in a decision of Three Judge Bench of this Court, since reported in Mallikarjun v. Gulbarga University 2004 1 SCC 372, the decision of the High Court was reversed holding that clause 30 companystituted an arbitration agreement.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short, the Act is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 31.1.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.717 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the objection filed by the appellant herein under Section 34 of the Act was held to be barred by limitation.
Bereft of all unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is as under The parties hereto entered into a companytract of companystruction of an indoor stadium on or about 21.5.1993.
