M. K. Chawla ( 1 ) IN a petition under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, the case set up by M/s. R. S. Amar Nath Mehra and Co. , in brief, is that the petitioner entered into a contract with respondent No. 1, General Manager, Northern Railway, for the handling of goods in Zone No. 5, Delhi Division, of Northern Railway during the period from 11-11-72 to 15-8-74. The petitioner completed the work in terms of the contract. The respondents, however refused to make certain payments and also enforced wrongful deductions without any reason. The petitioner vide his letter dated 16-5-75 requested the respondents to make the balance payment of Rs. 2,99,930. 73 along with the refund of security of Rs. 25. 000. 00 but the respondents, for reasons best known to them, have not cared to send any reply. However, the respondents send a cheque for Rs. 22,792. 33 on 24-8-81 stating it to be the final payment. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and requested the respondents to appoint arbitrator to decide the disputes mentioned in para 11 of the petition. Inspite of service of the said notice, respondents have not cared to appoint the arbitrator to adjudicate the controversy between the parties. Hence the present petition. ( 2 ) THE respondents, in reply, took a preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation and that the disputes sought to be referred to arbitration are false within the definition of excepted matters under the arbitration clause. On merits, however, they admitted the execution of the agreement between the parties on 16-12-72 and the completion of the work. As per the averments, due payments were made to the petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract from time to time. The last payment of Rs. 22,792. 33 was sent to the petitioner in full and final settlement of their claim. None of the disputes mentioned in para 11 of the petition remains to be settled and as such the petition merits dismissal. ( 3 ) IN the rejoinder the petitioner controverted the pleas raised by the respondents in the written statement and reiterated the facts as stated in the petition. None of the disputes mentioned in para 11 of the petition remains to be settled and as such the petition merits dismissal. ( 3 ) IN the rejoinder the petitioner controverted the pleas raised by the respondents in the written statement and reiterated the facts as stated in the petition. ( 4 ) BEFORE the issues could be framed learned counsel for the parties agreed that the present petition can be disposed of on the basis of the pleadings and the documents placed on record. The first and foremost contention the learned counsel for the respondents is that the agreement in question was executed between the parties on 16-12-72. The petitioner Co. was required to handle the goods of Zone No. 5, Delhi Division from 11-11-72 to 10-11-75. The petitioner, however, worked only upto 15-8-74 and the present petition having been filed on 23-8-84 is prima facie barred by limitation. This argument prima facie has no merit. There is no dispute about the period within which the petitioner was required complete the job. As to whether the petitioner complied with the terms and conditions of the contract or the petitioner resiled from the contract is a separate question. However, the fact remains that the last payment to the tune of Rs. 22,792. 33 was remitted by the respondents on 24-8-81 which was received by the petitioner on 27-8-81. The petitioner was not satisfied with the amount alleged to be in full and final settlement of their claim. He invoked the arbitration clause vide his letter dated 21-11-81. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted the bill for balance payment of Rs. 2,99,930. 73 as far back as 16-5-75, followed by a reminder on 7-8-76. The respondents vide their letter dated 10-5-77 sought certain clarifications against the bill submitted by the petitioner, the information of which was duly conveyed on 15-7-77. In response to the said information, the respondents invited the petitioner to their office on 24-9-80 for the payment of the balance dues. Instead of paying the amount claimed, the respondents sent the cheque of Rs. 22,792. 33 on 24-8-81. The present petition having been filed within the period of 3 years i. e. on 21-8-84 cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Instead of paying the amount claimed, the respondents sent the cheque of Rs. 22,792. 33 on 24-8-81. The present petition having been filed within the period of 3 years i. e. on 21-8-84 cannot be said to be barred by limitation. ( 5 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that almost all the disputes mentioned in para 11 of the petition are covered under the excepted matters. Even this stand of the respondents is without any substance. The petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause under clause 64 of the General Conditions of the Contract. Clause 63 relates to the matters falling within the expression "excepted matters", the decision of which given by the Railways have been held to be binding on the contractor. The various disputes mentioned in this provision which fait within the cxcepted matters relate to the payment of illegal gratifications, meaning of intent to specification and drawings, rates for extra item of work, measurement of works, provisions for payment under the Wages Act, payment of debt mentioned in the contract and the determination of contract owing to the fault of the contractor. None of these disputes form part of disputes now sought to be referred by the petitioner to arbitration. The claims mostly relate to the refund of certain amounts which have either been wrongly deducted-disallowed or incurred at the directions of the respondents. These disputes prima facie are not covered under the expression "excepted matters" contained in clause 63 of the General Conditions. ( 6 ) NO other point has been urged nor requires going into. ( 7 ) AS a result of the above discussion, I allow the petition and direct respondent No. 2 to appoint an arbitrator within (wo months from today who shall publish his award within 4 months from the date he enters upon the reference.