1977 (3) TMI 168 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the claim is belated under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. Whether the claim sought to be raised could be allowed to be raised at this time.
3. Whether the present claim was part of the previous claim or if it can be referred again afresh.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the claim is belated under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The respondent argued that the work was completed around 1968, and the application was made on 24th May 1975, thus being belated under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a period of three years from when the right to apply accrues. The Supreme Court's decision in Kerala State Electricity Board v. T. P. Kunhaliumma was cited, asserting that Article 137 applies to applications under any Act, including Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. However, the court noted that the right to apply arose from the General Manager's failure to comply with the contractor's request dated 7th April 1975, and the application was made on 9th December 1976. Therefore, the court held that the application was not barred by limitation as the right to apply to the court arose from the General Manager's non-compliance.

2. Whether the claim sought to be raised could be allowed to be raised at this time:
The court examined whether the current claim could be raised afresh. The plaintiff relied on the decision in Kerorimall v. Union of India, where it was held that disputes not previously raised could be raised later unless they were part of a previous award. The court found that the current claim was for earthwork in a different location, which was not part of the previous claim. However, the court emphasized that arbitration aims for speedy resolution of disputes and that raising claims in a piecemeal fashion would defeat this purpose. The court applied the principle behind Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prevents multiplicity of proceedings, and concluded that the current claim should be considered barred as it could have been raised earlier.

3. Whether the present claim was part of the previous claim or if it can be referred again afresh:
The court analyzed whether the present claim was part of the previous arbitration. The previous claim was for earthwork in embankment, while the current claim was for earthwork related to bridge work and turfing. Despite the different locations, the court determined that both claims pertained to earthwork. The court referred to the principles of res judicata, holding that the current claim was barred by constructive res judicata, as it could have been raised in the previous arbitration. The court also noted that entertaining the new claim would require modification of the awarded amount, which was not feasible.

Conclusion:
The application was dismissed, and the court held that the present dispute could not be referred to the Umpire. The court emphasized the importance of raising all possible claims in a single arbitration proceeding to avoid multiplicity and ensure speedy resolution of disputes. There was no order as to costs.