8 \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 205 OF 2006 Appeal Under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Aggrieved by the order of the dismissal of O.P.No.513/2003 by the Court of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru dated 22-09- 2005. Between: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Union of India, Represented by its Executive Engineer BSNL, Civil Division, Rajahmundry ...Appellant / Petitioner AND SRI E.P. Satyanarayana Contractor S/o Sri P. Tirupathaiah Contractor C/o. Sri. P. Tirupathaiah, D.No. 75-10-1/A, (II Floor) PVR Building, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada-520 012 Krishna District ...Respondents / Respondent Counsel for the Appellant :SRI. K L N SWAMY y Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V SAMBASIVA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010447902006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] ) A MONDAY. THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 205/2006 Between: ...APPELLANT Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Rep. By Ee, Bsnl, Rajahmundry AND ...RESPONDENT Sri E P Satyanarayana R/o Vijayawada Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K L N SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent: 1.VSAMBASIVARAO 2.DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The appellant herein, had awarded a contract, namely “Construction of Vertical Extension to the Telephone Exchange Building, 3 No.s. Type - III and 3 No.s. Type - II Staff Quarters at Kovvur”. The terms of the agreement were contained in the written agreement bearing No.57/TCDV/92-93, dated 27.10.1992. The contract was to be executed within a period of 13 months. 2 RRR,J & IVIRK,J CM.A.No.205 of 2006 The contract was completed, as per the record in the i.e., 26.11.1993. measurement book, on 31.12.1996 with a delay of 1131 days. It appears that an extension of time was sanctioned with levy of compensation upto 31.12.1996. The final bill was prepared on 30.06.1997 for a sum of Rs. 1,43,427/- and the same was paid on 27.06.1997, after deducting amount of Rs.5,000/-, as penalty for sanction of extension of time. The said payment was accepted under protest, by the respondent. Subsequently, the amount of Rs.5,000/-, which was originally deducted was paid on 2. an 16.12.1998. The respondent invoked the arbitration clause under Section 158 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and sought reference of disputes to arbitration. The original Arbitrator, resigned on 19.06.2002 and another arbitrator was appointed on 01.08.2002. The said Arbitrator, after hearing both sides and after considering the same, passed an award on 27.01.2003. The respondent had raised nine claims. The Arbitrator rejected three claims and partly-allowed the remaining six claims. 3. 4. Aggrieved by this award, the appellant approached the learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru by way of O.P.No.513 of 2003. This petition, came to be dismissed, on 22.09.2005. 5. Aggrieved by said order of dismissal, the appellant has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3 RRR,J & MRK,J C.M.A.No.205 of 2006 The grounds of challenge, to the award as well as the order of the Trial 6. Court, are as follows: The entire proceedings were conducted by a person claiming to (i). be the power of attorney holder of the respondent. Such a power of attorney was not registered initially and came to be registered, while the arbitration proceedings were going on. Since, the power of attorney requires to be registered at the very inception, the authorisation would have to be treated as non est and the person prosecuting the arbitration was not authorized by the respondent. It is not disputed that the power of attorney holder of the respondent had an unregistered power of attorney, even prior to the initiation of the arbitration proceedings. The contention of the appellant is that, such a power of attorney is not valid unless it is registered. This Court is unable to accept this contention as there is no requirement for the power of attorney to be registered, unless the said power of attorney empowers the agent to alienate immovable property. In the present case, the power of attorney was for prosecuting the claims of the respondent. In such circumstances, we are in agreement with the view of the learned Arbitrator as well as the Trial Court that non-registration of the power of attorney does not affect the maintainability of the claims before the Arbitrator. 4 RRR,J & MRK,J C.M.A.No.205 of 2006 (ii). A subordinate ground is that such a power of attorney, could not without the permission of the appellant have been granted as the same was herein. the clause prohibiting the subletting of the The contention is that contract without the permission of the appellant, would encompass the grant of power of attorney also. We do not agree with this contention as subletting clearly different from appointing an agent for better execution of the contract is contract and for pursuing the claims of the principal. the barred by limitation as arbitration (iii). The claim for arbitration was sought within 90 days from the date of cause of action. In should have been 30.06.1997 when the due date the present case, the cause of action arose on for payment of final bill 05.08.1998, which is occurred, whereas arbitration was sought on beyond the period of 90 days from 30.06.1997. The the fact that the final amount of learned Arbitrator took into account under the final bill settled by the appellant, was paid only initiation of arbitration prior to the said date on the arbitration beyond limitation. The judgment Rs.5,000/-, payable 16.12.1998 and as such on 05.08.1998, would not place of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Unity Engineers Vs. i.T.P.O. that the arbitration was within time. had held, in similar circumstances The appellant, except raising this contention, has not placed any judgment before this Court in support of this contention. The material or 2001 (2)Arb. LR 211 (Delhi) 5 RRR,J & MRK,J C.M.A.No.205 of 2006 limitation for any litigation, would only commence from the date of cause of action arising in the case. The term cause of action has been explained in various judgments to include the bundle of facts due to which, a party approaches the Court or an adjudicatory forum. In the present case, retention of Rs.5,000/- on 27.06.1997 and subsequent payment of the said amount of Rs.5,000/- on 16.12.1998 would certainly give rise to a cause of action for the respondent to invoke arbitration. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to agree with the contention of the appellant that the claim of the respondent was beyond limitation. (iv). The delay in completion of the contract, was on account of the inaction of the respondent and as such, the claims raised by the respondent could not have been looked into. This is a question of fact, which has to be gone into by the Arbitrator, which had held against the appellant. The Trial Court refused to go into this issue, on the ground that, findings of fact, by an cannot be looked into unless extreme approach or total unreasonableness is writ large on such findings. Arbitrator, We are in agreement with this view of the Trial Court and do not find any reason to interfere with such findings by the learned Arbitrator. f In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the 7. award or the judgment of the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. 8. 6 RRR,J & MRK,J C.M.A.No.205 of2006 It is represented that, the award amount had been deposited with the Trial Court and an interim stay was granted, by this Court, on 22.03.2006, permitting the respondent to withdraw half of the amount deposited, including interest thereon, by furnishing a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Court below. It is stated that, such an amount was withdrawn, after furnishing a bank guarantee. 9. 10. In view of the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the remaining half of the amount deposited with the Trial Court, along with the interest that such deposit without furnishing any security. The respondent shall also be entitled to withdraw the bank guarantee furnished earlier. was occurred on There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECtrbN OFFICER To, 1. The Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (with records) 2. The Registrar(Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Section Officer, Accounts Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 4. One CC to Sri. K L N Swamy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri V Sambasiva Rao, Advocate.[OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. Devalaraju Anil Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 7. The Section Officer, V R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 8. Three CD Copies PR vna HIGH COURT DATED:27/01/2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.205 of 2006 AND#y/Q X 0 <1 MAR 2025 ^ . Curreni iecinJfl o\ Co/ DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS