IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.A. No. 19 of 2009
(Singh Builders Syndicate Vrs. Central coalfields Ltd. & Ors.)
With
A.A No. 21 of 2009
(Singh Builders Syndicate Vrs. Central coalfields Ltd. & Ors.)
With
A.A. No. 22 of 2009
(Singh Builders Syndicate Vrs. Central coalfields Ltd. & Ors.)
With
A.A. No. 24 of 2009
(Vikram Transport Constn. Co. Vrs. Central coalfields Ltd. & Ors.)
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA
------
For the Petitioners: M/s. Ajay Poddar (In all matters)
For the Respondents: M/s Ananda Sen (In all matters)
Mr. Ranjan Kumar
------ Dated 6th May, 2011
Prakash Tatia, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. All these matters are co-related having identical facts though
the claims are different in each applications. So far as the different
claims are concerned, it is apparent from the arbitration application.
It is, therefore, by taking fact of one case, all these matters are
being decided by a common order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner
was allotted work for construction of 64 numbers of Miners quarters
by the respondent-company in the year 1986 to be completed
within 12 months from the date of work order. However, the said
work was completed in the year 1989 i.e. after a delay of 24 months
which delay was due to latches on the part of respondent as per
the petitioner and the petitioner's dues were not paid. According to
the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent-Company
itself has given a letter dated 03.1.2005 to the petitioner showing
therein the statement of all old cases of civil capital work done by
the petitioner showing also Rs. 1,23,000/- as dues amount against
work and Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money. Thereafter, the
petitioner served notice upon the respondent-Company on
12.4.2007
and also gave several reminders. Thereafter, the
petitioner had no option but to make a request for appointment of
an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration Clause, therefore he gave
notice for appointment of arbitrator to respondent.
4. It is clear from the facts stated in the petition itself that work
order was given in the year 1986 containing clause of completion of
work within 12 months and admittedly the work was completed in
the year 1989. Therefore, all amount of the petitioner became due
in the year 1989 itself but because of the letter dated 3.1.2005
addressed to the Staff Officer, Civil, one of the Branches of the
respondent Company endorsing the copy of the statement of the
old cases showing therein due amounts of petitioner also cannot
extend the period of limitation as the period of limitation by
acknowledgment or by part payment can extend the period of
limitation of the debt which is within the period of the limitation.
5. Be that as it may, the Annexure-4 letter dated 3.10.2110
also neither shows payment nor the acknowledgment of the debt
but it is a statement sent by the respondent-Company to its own
office by endorsing the copy to petitioner. Even if the date of said
letter is taken into account i.e. 3.1.2005, for period of limitation,
then also these applications are barred by time as they have been
field in the year 2009. Since, the facts have come from the side of
the petitioner and are not disputed by the respondents, therefore,
the petitioners’ claim appears to be stale and therefore, the
applications filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.
6. These applications are accordingly dismissed.
(Prakash Tatia, J.)
Alankar/Sudhir