Madras High Court
Urc Construction (P) Ltd vs The General Manager on 16 December, 2021
O.S.A.(CAD) No.131 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
O.S.A. (CAD) No.131 of 2021
URC Construction (P) Ltd
No.119, Power House Road
Erode - 638 001, Tamilnadu. .. Appellant
Vs
1. The General Manager
Southern Railway
Head Quarters Office
Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.
2. The Chief Engineer/Central
Construction, Southern Railway
Periyar E.V.R. High Road
Egmore, Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) No.131 of 2021
Side Rules gainst the order dated 25.10.2021 passed in Arb. O.P.
(Com. Div.) No.112 of 2021.
For the Appellant : Ms.K.Aparna Devi
For the Respondents : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
By this appeal a challenge is made to the interim order dated
25.10.2021.
2. The facts of the case show that pursuant to the claim made by
the appellant, an award was passed by the arbitrator on 12.12.2019.
An application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 (for brevity, "the Act") was filed by the respondents. The issue
of limitation was raised therein as the award was passed by the
arbitrator on 12.12.2019, whereas the application under Section 34 of
the Act was preferred on 10.11.2020. It is stated that, during the
intervening period, an application under Section 33(1) of the Act was
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) No.131 of 2021
moved seeking correction in the award. The said application was
decided on 21.1.2020 and thereupon due to Covid-19 the period of
limitation was extended.
3. According to the appellant, the issue of limitation has not been
decided by the learned Single Judge and the matter has been placed
for hearing the arguments on merits.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents initially contested the
matter, but after going through the order under challenge would
realise that the objection of the appellant about limitation has not been
conclusively decided by the learned Single Judge.
5. In the order impugned, the learned Single Judge observed
about his prima facie satisfaction with the argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioners therein that the period of limitation will
commence from the date of disposal of the application under Section
33(1) of the Act. The prima facie satisfaction can not be said to be
conclusive finding on the issue of limitation.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) No.131 of 2021
6. In view of the above, both learned counsel agree that the
issue of limitation may be directed to be considered by the learned
Single Judge while hearing the merits of the case.
7. Accordingly, we cause interference with the order dated
25.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter
with a request to decide the issue of limitation afresh while hearing the
matter on merits.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently,
C.M.P.No.20280 of 2021 is closed.
(M.N.B., ACJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
16.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
sasi
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) No.131 of 2021
To:
1. The Sub Assistant Registrar
Original Side
High Court, Madras.
2. The General Manager
Southern Railway
Head Quarters Office
Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.
3. The Chief Engineer/Central
Construction, Southern Railway
Periyar E.V.R. High Road
Egmore, Chennai.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) No.131 of 2021
M.N.BHANDARI, ACJ
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.
(sasi)
O.S.A. (CAD) No.131 of 2021
16.12.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
