1. This is an application under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner is the award-debtor. The petitioner
prays for stay of operation of the arbitral award dated August 8, 2022,
passed by the learned sole arbitrator.
2. It is contended by Mr. Mandal that the point of limitation was disposed of
as a preliminary issue by the learned arbitrator without referring to the
appropriate provisions of law. The claim was patently time barred. The
work was completed in 1992 and the invocation of the arbitration clause
for the was first time made on May 24, 2010, i.e., after 17 years from the
completion of the work. Such delay had defeated the right of the claimant
to seek any relief under the contract. It is urged that the learned
arbitrator had erroneously relied on clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Conditions
of Contract in support of the finding that the claimant had a mandatory
right to submit the bill in terms of the contract and the claimant had done
so, but they remained unpaid. Once such bills were submitted, the
obligation on the respondent to pay such bill had set in. On such flimsy
grounds, the learned arbitrator admitted a time-barred claim by
misconstruing the clauses of the contract. The further contention of Mr.
Mandal is that, the learned arbitrator was under a misconception that if
the bills were not counter signed by the respondent. The contract would
not come to an end and the relationship between the parties would not
terminate. The issue of limitation could not be urged under such
circumstances. These findings, according to Mr. Manal, were errors
apparent on the face of the record and the award should be stayed
unconditionally.