2025:UHC:1596 SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 07.03.2025 ARBAP No. 48 of 2024 Hon’ble G. Narendar, C.J. 1. Heard Sri P.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondents. 2. The applicant is before this Court, invoking the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to hear and settle the disputes, arising out of the Contract Bond 10/SE 111/2008 dated 08.07.2008. 3. It is the case of the applicant that repeated requests were of no avail, and notice demanding payment and appointment of Arbitrator, on failure to appoint Arbitrator, came to be issued on 30.03.2024. 4. It is the case of the respondents that the claim is not maintainable, as it is woefully belated by more than 11 years. It is the further case of the respondents that the contract was of the year 2008, and the works were to be completed by January, 2010, and the final payment, under the Contract, was made in March, 2013. It is the further case of the respondents that the amounts were received by the applicant without demur or protest, and that the works, towards which the additional amounts are claimed, are additional works, and were not part of the Contract Bond noted supra. 5. The dates are not in dispute. The applicant, having received the final payment, cannot now be permitted to turn around and put up a claim that the applicant has not 2025:UHC:1596 received the amounts due under the contract. The fact that final payment is made, and that the final payment is accepted, without demur or protest, is not in dispute. The fact also remains that the work, that was assigned and completed by the applicant, is altogether a different work, which was not part of the scope of the work under the Contract Bond noted supra. 6. In that view of the mater, the arbitration clause itself was not invocable. Be that as it may, the dispute does not relate to a work within the scope of the Contract Bond. That apart, the claim is also highly belated, and the delay in raising the claim has rendered the claim a stale claim. There being no factors mitigating the delay of 11 years, the application does not merit consideration, and is accordingly rejected. 7. Accordingly, the present Arbitration Application is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand disposed off. (G. Narendar, C.J.) 07.03.2025 Rahul