Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Rajesh Goyal vs Nafref Engineering Pvt. Ltd on 30 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060285
2024:PHHC:060285
ARB-141-2022 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
110 ARB-141-2022 (O & M)
Date of decision:30.04.2024
M/S RAJESH GOYAL ...PETITIONER
VS.
NAFREF ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Bawa, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short "the Act") for
appointment of an Arbitrator.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an agreement dated
01.06.2015, Annexure P-1, for addition/alteration to certain sheds and
allied services at AFT STN Gurgaon was entered into between the
parties. He submits that petitioner completed the work in July, 2017, and
the last payment was made on 05.08.2017. He submits that as some
payment was withheld, petitioner served a legal notice, Annexure P-2,
and when it did not yield any result, legal notice dated 20.01.2021,
Annexure P-3, was issued, invoking the arbitration clause. Counsel
submits that the respondent rejected the demand for appointment of an
Arbitrator vide their reply dated 22.02.2021, Annexure P-4.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060285
2024:PHHC:060285
ARB-141-2022 (O & M) -2-
3. Upon notice, response has been filed by the respondent,
contesting the petition by taking a stand that there is no dispute between
the parties and the claim, if any, is barred by time.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
5. Supreme Court in M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus Aptech
Limited 2024 SCC Online SC 215 held that the period from 15.03.2020
to 28.02.2022 has to be excluded for computation of limitation and the
balance limitation left after 15.03.2020 would become available on
01.03.2022. Undisputedly, last payment was made to the petitioner in
August, 2017, and he served a legal notice on 20.01.2021, Annexure P-3,
invoking the arbitration clause before instituting the present petition on
30.03.2022. Petitioner was left with limitation period on 15.03.2020 and
he has invoked the arbitration clause during the Covid period.
Consequently, the claim cannot be said to be time barred.
6. In Extra Marks Education India Private Limited Versus M/s
DIS Chain of Institutions and another 2022 (4) RCR (Civil) 991, a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that the issue of limitation,
which concerns the admissibility of the claim has to be decided by the
Arbitrator. Therefore, there is no force in the argument of the counsel for
the respondent that the claim is ex facie barred by limitation. The
judgment in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited Rep Versus M/s SENCON
Systems Private Limited 2023 AIR (Andhra Pradesh) 119 relied upon
by the respondent is not applicable to the facts of the case.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060285
2024:PHHC:060285
ARB-141-2022 (O & M) -3-
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Mr. Justice (Retd.) Bharat
Bhushan Parsoon, H.No. 235, Sector 16, Chandigarh, New Address
#154, Sector 35-A, Chd, Mobile No.09416393399/09999688558, is
requested to act as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the
parties.
8. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on a
day, time and place to be communicated by him.
9. Liberty is granted to the parties to raise all claims, counter
claims, defences, pleas etc. before the Arbitrator.
10. Needless to mention that all the questions arising between the
parties in this matter shall remain open for determination in the arbitral
proceedings and any observation made hereinabove will not be binding
on the learned Arbitrator.
11. A request letter alongwith a copy of this order be sent to
Mr. Justice (Retd.) Bharat Bhushan Parsoon.
30.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
