Allowed

M/S Garg Construction Co. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jan 2010CR/3451/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a revision petition challenging an arbitrator's refusal to consider a belated claim. The arbitrator relied on a contractual limitation clause, but the High Court held such clauses cannot override the Limitation Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's revision allowed; impugned order set aside; Arbitrator directed to decide the claim in accordance with law.

M/S Garg Construction Co. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C. R. No. 3451 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 3451 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision : January 15, 2010

¶6

M/s Garg Construction Company .... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. State of Punjab and another .... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. P. S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶14

Contractor has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 24.04.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent no.2 as Arbitrator, whereby respondent no.2 has stated that claim of the petitioner-contractor cannot be considered at the belated stage. This observation was made on the basis of limitation period specified in clause 25 (vii) of the agreement.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the period of limitation, as prescribed by the Limitation Act, could not be curtailed by the clause in the agreement, and therefore, impugned order is not sustainable. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Midda vs. State of Punjab and

¶16

C. R. No. 3451 of 2009

¶17

¶18

others reported as 2004 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 374 and a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Punj Lloyd Ltd. vs. National Highways Authority of India reported as 2009 (3) Arbitration Law Report 506 (Delhi) .

¶19

Learned State counsel for the respondents has not cited any judgment to the contrary.

¶20

In view of judgments referred to herein above, the petition is entitled to succeed. Facts in the case of Rajesh Kumar Midda (supra) were exactly the same. In the case of Punj Lloyd Ltd. (supra) also, this issue has been dealt with and same view has been taken.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and order dated 24.04.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent no.2 is set aside. Respondent no.2-Arbitrator is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶22

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶23

January 15, 2010

¶24

monika

M/S Garg Construction Co. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Garg Construction Co. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Singh Yadavand Anors Vs M/S Life Insuranbce Corp of India

Kanwar Singh Vs Bhagwan Singh and Another

Sohan Singh and Ors. Vs Kuldip Singh and Anr.

Daljit Singh Vs Shashi Kumar and Ors.

P S I D C Ltd. Vs M/S Vee Kay Oils P Ltd. and Ors.

Principal Maharishi Vidya Mandir Vs Bimla Devi and Ors.