If a party fails to comply with the deadline of the agreement it is not entitled to the extension of limitations – High court of MP
Case Title: RAMESH KUMAR MANSANI, ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS Versus MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others
Case No: ARBITRATION REVISION No. 47 of 2022
Decided on:16th April, 2024
Quorum: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
Facts of the case
The facts of the present case show that the termination occurred on June 25, 2004. While the petitioner filed a claim against termination on September 16, 2004, well past the 30-day window specified in condition 29 for bringing up a disagreement with the Authority’s Chief Executive Officer. As a result, the petitioner is not eligible to benefit from the extended three-year statute of limitations granted by Section 7-B (2-A) since they did not follow the schedule stipulated in clause 29 of the agreement.
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioner disputed the validity of an award made by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, claiming that the reference petition was rejected because it failed to comply with the agreement’s mandatory elements within the allotted time . The reference petition was dismissed by the Tribunal after it was determined that the petitioner had not used the internal remedy within the allotted time . The argument that Clause 29’s time limit is not required was denied, highlighting the significance of timely submissions to avoid evidence loss . The petitioner was not entitled to the extended three-year statute of limitations since they did not follow the deadline stipulated in Clause 29 of the agreement . The Tribunal denied the revision petition after finding no anomalies in the award.
Respondent’s Contentions
Rejecting the idea that the time restriction in Clause 29 is not required, the respondent contended that timely claims are essential to prevent loss of evidence . They stressed that in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, a reference petition must first be filed with the authority in accordance with the conditions of the work contract . Furthermore, the respondent argued that the contractor was still required to adhere to the administrative authority’s timeframe in accordance with the internal remedy outlined in Clause 29 , despite the additional three-year limitation period.
Court Analysis and Judgement
The ruling underlined how crucial it is to abide by the conditions of the work contract before utilizing the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and how the disagreement must be submitted to the final authority first . It was emphasized that an aggrieved party may file a complaint with the Tribunal within three years after the date of the cause of action in situations where the works contract does not contain a dispute resolution clause such as Clause 29 . The ruling further said that a party may not be eligible to receive the extended three-year statute of limitations if they do not comply with the deadline stipulated in Clause 29 of the agreement .
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace