Manik Bhadra v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Judgment

#1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through it's Cliairman-cum- Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Chief General Manager,- Chirimiri Area, S.E.C.L., G. M. Gomplex, West Chirimiri, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) Manager, N.C.P.H. Colliery, Haldibadi, Chirimiri, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) 3 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CON-

#1. Particulars of the Petitioner:. As mentioned in the cause title. ^•ffl' HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH. BILASPUR (Sinole Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J) W.P.No. 359/2002 PETITIONER Manik Bhadra Vs RESPONOENTS

#1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited.

#2. Chief (Seneral Manager, Chirmiri Area, SECL

#3. Manager, Chir'miri. N.C.P.H. Colliery, Reserved on 09.04.2013 Ppst for orders on 23.04.2013 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge iB—tnnftai •.f^^tr, BtstSI

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH. BILASPUR (Sinqle Bench; Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J) .P. No.359/2002 PETITIONER Manik Bhadra Vs RESPONbENTS

#1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited.

#2. Chief Seneral Manager, Chirmiri Area, SECL

#3. Manager, Chirmiri. N.C.P.H. Colliery, Reserved on 09.04.2013 Present: Miss Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Harit, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, Adv. for the respondents. OROER (23.04.2013)

#1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to invoke supervisory jurisdiction and has prayed for quashment of the order dated 9.1.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, bistrict Koriya (C6) in Civil Suit No.l-A/97 whereby the application filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (henceforth 'the Act of 1940') has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

#2. As per the order impugned and copy of other documents, work under agreement has been completed on 26.1.1991 but notice for appointment of the arbitrator under Section 8 & 20 of the Act of 1940 has been issued by the petitioner on

20.11.1996. Thereafter a civil suit was filed showing the date of cause of action as 20.12.1996, which was objected by the respondent on the ground that the suit is bar-r-ed by time. After" providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, t1ie trial Court dismissed the application for appointmentof the Arbitrator on the ground of limitation and has held that f d %.^ URjjS ^'7>53....-' ,.i Page2of5 W.P. No.359/2002 for the purpose of limitfltion in respect of appointment of arbitrator under Section 20 of the Act of 1940 or referring the parties to the arbitration under Section 8 of the Act of 1996, provisions of Article 137 pf the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply.

#3. Heard learned counsel the parties and perused the petition, documents and impugned order.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that IS"iB whether the claim made was barred by limitation or not was the subject-matter before the Arbitrator, therefore, the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the application on the ground of limitation. Reliance is placed in the matter of Subhash Chandra Patodi vs. Food Corporation of India in which the High Court of M.P., relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter Union of India and another vs. M/s L.K. Ahuja <& Co.2, has held that the matter whether actually the claim made is barred by limitation or is for the Arbitrator to decide. Further reliance is placed in the matter of Wazir Chand Mahajan & another v. The Union of India in which the Supreme Court has held that Articte 181 of the L/mitation Act, 1908 only governs the applications made under Civil Procedure Code and application made under Section 20 of the Act of 1940 is not governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 i.e. new Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Supreme Court has further held that question of limitation falls within the province of the Arbitrator to whom the dispute is referred.

#5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel respondents opposed the petition and submits