cause of action has commenced when the breaches were alleged to have
been committed by the petitioner even according to the respondents
much prior to 14th January, 1997 did not stop. There was no part payment
made by the petitioner admittedly to the respondents arising out of such
demand by the respondents in the year 1997, nor the petitioner
acknowledged any liability to pay the said amount during the period
between 1997 and 2000. The impugned award is contrary to section 9 of
the Limitation Act and over looking the fact that the cause of action even
according to the respondents had commenced for recovery of
compensation / damages prior to 14th January, 1997 when the breach of
contract was alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. In my
view, since the arbitral tribunal has allowed the time barred claims, the
award is in conflict with the public policy and deserves to be set-aside on
this ground also.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO.275 OF 2012
CMC Limited
Vs.
Unit Trust of India
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.
PRONOUNCED ON : 6th February, 2015
Citation: 2016(2) ALLMR589
