9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation for raising a claim u/s Clause 54. 2. Applicability of arbitration agreement post completion of contract. 3. Jurisdiction of civil court u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 4. Validity of contractual clauses providing for limitation. Summary: Limitation for Raising a Claim u/s Clause 54: The appellant contended that the High Court erred in not considering that the limitation for raising a claim as envisaged under Clause 54 is not applicable in this case. The appellant argued that the period of 30 days should be counted from the date the claim was rejected by the appellate authority on 26.2.1992. The respondent, however, maintained that Clause 54 must be invoked during the tenure of the contract and not after its completion and acceptance of the final bill. Applicability of Arbitration Agreement Post Completion of Contract: The appellant argued that the court's role u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act was only to determine if there was a triable issue, not to delve into the merits of the claim. The respondent countered that the final bill's acceptance without demur ended the contract and, consequently, the arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court noted that the arbitration agreement, contained in clauses 37, 54, and 55, must be interpreted in light of the contract's language and does not cover claims raised post-completion. Jurisdiction of Civil Court u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940: The appellant filed an application u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act for the appointment of an arbitrator. The civil judge opined that the application was within the limitation period specified in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and appointed an arbitrator. However, the High Court allowed the respondent's revision application, overturning the civil judge's decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that the civil court's jurisdiction u/s 8 or 20 of the Act can only be invoked if the disputes fall within the arbitration agreement's scope. Validity of Contractual Clauses Providing for Limitation: The Supreme Court highlighted that contractual clauses providing for limitation are valid and enforceable. Clause 54 does not envisage raising claims for extra or additional work after the contract's completion. The court referenced "The Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maharaj Singh and Anr." to support the validity of such clauses, noting that a clause providing for limitation to lodge a claim is not invalid. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the arbitration clause could not be invoked post-completion of the contract and acceptance of the final bill. The appellant's claims were not raised within the stipulated period, and thus, the arbitration agreement did not apply. The contractual clauses providing for limitation were deemed valid and enforceable.
|
