Rajesh Kumar Midda Vs. State of Punjab and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/635822
SubjectContract;Limitation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnDec-05-2003
Case NumberCivil Revision No. 5701 of 2003
Judge K.C. Gupta, J.
Reported in(2004)136PLR875
ActsContract Act, 1872 - Sections 28; Limitation Act, 1963
AppellantRajesh Kumar Midda
RespondentState of Punjab and ors.
Advocates: P.S. Rana, Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Cases ReferredHindustan Construction Corporation v. Delhi Development Authority
Excerpt:
- k.c. gupta, j.1. heard.2. notice of motion.3. on the asking of the court, sh. s.s. behl, additional a.g. punjab, accepts notice on behalf of state.4. this revision petition is directed under article 227 of the constitution of india forquashing the impugned orders, annexure p1 dated 21.8.2003 and annexure p3 dated13.10.2003 passed by respondent no. 2 as the same are without jurisdiction, illegal andvoid.5. learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the arbitrator was not justified in refusing to entertain the claim on the basis that it was time barred as it had not been filed within six months from the date of receipt of the final bill and was filed after one year and 6 months. he further contended that amendment has been made in section 28 of the contract act vide amendment act 1 of 1997, whereby clause (b) has been incorporated therein and according to this amendment, every agreement, which restricts or limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights is bad. for this contention, he placed reliance upon an authority i.e. hindustan construction corporation v. delhi development authority, 1999(1) r.c.r. (civil) 476 (delhi). therefore, in view of the amendment, the arbitrator was not justified in refusing to entertain the claim.consequently, the civil revision is accepted and the impugned orders, annexure p1and p3 are set-aside and the arbitrator is directed to decide the claim in accordancewith law.
Judgment:

K.C. Gupta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Notice of motion.

3. On the asking of the Court, Sh. S.S. Behl, Additional A.G. Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of State.

4. This revision petition is directed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India forquashing the impugned orders, Annexure P1 dated 21.8.2003 and Annexure P3 dated13.10.2003 passed by respondent No. 2 as the same are without jurisdiction, illegal andvoid.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Arbitrator was not justified in refusing to entertain the claim on the basis that it was time barred as it had not been filed within six months from the date of receipt of the final bill and was filed after one year and 6 months. He further contended that amendment has been made in Section 28 of the Contract Act vide Amendment Act 1 of 1997, whereby Clause (b) has been incorporated therein and according to this amendment, every agreement, which restricts or limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights is bad. For this contention, he placed reliance upon an authority i.e. Hindustan Construction Corporation v. Delhi Development Authority, 1999(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 476 (Delhi). Therefore, in view of the amendment, the arbitrator was not justified in refusing to entertain the claim.

Consequently, the civil revision is accepted and the impugned orders, Annexure P1and P3 are set-aside and the Arbitrator is directed to decide the claim in accordancewith law.