New Delhi, Jul 3 (KNN) The High Court has appointed an arbitrator to resolve a protracted dispute between B.B.M. Enterprises and West Bengal government authorities over unpaid construction work claims dating back nearly two decades.

This decision underscores the judiciary's reluctance to overstep its bounds in arbitration appointments, preferring to leave complex jurisdictional and limitation issues to the arbitrator's expertise.

In its ruling, the High Court emphasised that it would be premature to conclusively determine the issue of limitation under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that all jurisdictional issues, including limitations, should be decided by the arbitrator.

"Even if there is a shade of doubt as to the issue of limitation, the Court sitting under Section 11 cannot decide the same conclusively," the bench stated, highlighting the importance of relegating such matters to the arbitrator's domain.

The High Court has appointed Om Narayan Rai as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties, potentially bringing closure to this long-standing construction sector conflict.

The case, titled "M/S. B.B.M. Enterprises Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors." (Case Number: AP/535/2022), centers on B.B.M. Enterprises' completion of unspecified work for government authorities.

While a substantial portion of the final work value, amounting to Rs. 1,59,78,404, was paid, the company claims it is still owed Rs. 24,21,596, plus a security deposit refund of Rs. 11,44,205.

The crux of the legal battle lies in the interpretation of contractual clauses and the timing of the cause of action. B.B.M. Enterprises argues that without a final completion certificate from the Engineer-in-Charge, their claim for payment had not matured until the payment request was denied.

The government respondents challenged the arbitration application, citing significant delay and arguing that relevant documents were no longer available due to the approximately 20-year gap.

This case, decided on June 27, 2024, may have far-reaching implications for similar disputes in the construction industry, particularly those involving delayed claims and jurisdictional complexities.

(KNN Bureau)