TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant herein, the original applicant has preferred the present appeal. 2. That the appellant herein was issued work order in the year 1982. That the work was executed in the year 1986. According to the appellant herein, he executed excess quantity of work beyond the schedule quantity of work to be done. Therefore, he was entitled to the additional amount for the excess quantity of work done. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that a lot of correspondence was made by the appellant, however, the amount due and payable with respect to the excess quantity of work done was not paid. The appellant through letter dated 31.05.2018 requested the General Manager of South Eastern Railway to release the amount due or refer the dispute to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the arbitration petition under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act on the ground that it is barred by limitation, the original applicant has preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri Pijush K. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the High Court has materially erred in dismissing the arbitration petition under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act on the ground of limitation. 3.1 It is submitted that from the date of issuing the legal notice invoking the arbitration clause and after waiting for 30 days and thereafter when the application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act was made, the same cannot be said to be barred by limitation. 3.2 It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice invoking the arbitration clause and making a request to appoint arbitrator. 3.4 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. 4. We have heard Shri Pijush K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case, work order was issued on 7.4.1982 and the work/excess work was completed in the year 1986. Even as per the statement of claim, the amount due and payable was under work order dated 7.4.1982, which was executed up to 11.05.1986 and work order dated 15.01.1984 which was executed up to 26.8.1985. Therefore, right to claim the amount, due and payable, if any, can be said to have accrued in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e considered as the limitation would start from the date of serving the legal notice and after completion of 30 days from the date of service of the legal notice and invoking arbitration clause. 5. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra) is concerned, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the aforesaid decision, the Court was not dealing with such a situation where the legal notice was issued and served and the arbitration clause was invoked after a period of thirty-two years. In the aforesaid decision, this Court has not stated and/or observed and/or held that despite the fact that the legal notice invoking the arbitra....