JUDGMENT : 1. This application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, has been filed by applicant seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. 2. I have heard Mr. P.K. Sikka along with Mr. Nitin Chopra, the learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Ashish Agarwal, the learned counsel for respondent. 3. The applicant M/S Chandra Hi Tech is a partnership firm which is duly registered with the Registrar of firms under the Partnership Act. Mr. Siddharth Gupta and Mr. Sachin Agarwal are said to be partners of aforesaid partnership firm. 4. That U.P. Industrial Development Authority is presently known as Government Company who is now known as U.P. State Industrial Development Authority. 5. That erstwhile U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited invited tenders for construction of Sewage Treatment Plant 1A, Kursi Road, Barabanki, U.P. In response to the said tender notice, applicant also submitted his tender. Ultimately, tender submitted by applicant was accepted. Accordingly, Contract Bond No. 14/CE/2010-11 dated 9.7.2010 was executed. Same was followed by Job No. CD-VI (104) dated 30.4.2010. Value of the contract was assessed as Rs.6,46,00,000/-. 6. It is the case of applicant that pursuant to the above contract, the work started on 9.7.2010 and was completed in the month of October, 2014. Therefore, the final bill was raised on 3.3.2016. According to applicant, the Sewage Treatment Plant was handed over to the respondents on 5.2.2016, which has been confirmed on 5.2.2016 itself. The entire amount payable under the contract has been substantially paid except for the meagre amount of Rs.46,84,252/-. 7. Record shows that a letter dated 11.9.2018 was issued by the Executive Engineer of Corporation (U.P.S.I.D.C) asking the applicant to remove certain deficiencies which were noticed in the inspection conducted on 14.6.2018. 8. According to applicant, the deficiencies pointed out, vide letter dated 11.9.2018, have been rectified by undertaking the works specified therein. However, in spite of above, the balance amount due to the applicant under the contract i.e. Rs.46,84,252/- has not yet been paid. 9. In the circumstances as noted above, the applicant invoked Arbitration Clause contained in Clause-31 of Section-2 of the General Conditions of Contract. However, in spite of above, the balance amount due to the applicant under the contract i.e. Rs.46,84,252/- has not yet been paid. 9. In the circumstances as noted above, the applicant invoked Arbitration Clause contained in Clause-31 of Section-2 of the General Conditions of Contract. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under : “If any question, difference or objection whatsoever shall arise in any way connected with or arise in any way connected with or arising out of his instrument or the meaning or operation of any part thereof or the right duties or liabilities of either party than save insofar as the decision of any such matter is herein before provided for an has been so decided every such matter including whether its decision has been otherwise provided for and/or whether it has been finally decided accordingly, or whether the contract should be terminated or has been rightly terminated and as regards the right and obligations of the parties as the result of such termination shall be referred for arbitration to Managing Director UPSIDC, acting as such of the time of reference within 180 days or 6 months from the payment of final bill or written notice issued to the contractor that his bill is ready for payment and his decision shall be final and binding and where the matter involves a claim for or the payment or recovery of deduction of money, only the amount, if any awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of the matter so referred if the matter is not referred to arbitration within the specified period, all the rights and claims under the contract shall be deemed to have been forfeited and absolutely barred.” 10. However, no action was taken by respondents to appoint an Arbitrator for resolving the aforementioned dispute between the parties. Accordingly, applicant filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 before the Delhi High Court, the same was registered as ARB.P. 132 of 2022 (Chandra Hi Tech Vs. UPSIDC Now U.P. State Industrial Development Authority and Another). The said petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn (primarily for want of jurisdiction) vide order dated 8.2.2022. For ready reference, the order dated 8.2.2022 is reproduced herein under:- “The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing. 1. UPSIDC Now U.P. State Industrial Development Authority and Another). The said petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn (primarily for want of jurisdiction) vide order dated 8.2.2022. For ready reference, the order dated 8.2.2022 is reproduced herein under:- “The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw these petitions with liberty to file before the appropriate forum, having jurisdiction. 2. Permission is granted with liberty as prayed for. 3. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.” 11. It is in the light of above, that applicant has now approached this Court by means of present application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 12. Mr. P.K. Sikka, the learned counsel for applicant contends that there is no dispute regarding the fact that parties entered into a contract for construction of Sewage Treatment Plant at Kursi Road, Barabanki. Subsequent to aforesaid Contract Bond No. 14/CE/2010-11 dated 9.7.2010 was executed, which was followed by Job No. CD-VI (104) dated 30.4.2010. 13. It is further not in dispute that subsequent to above, the applicant has performed the contract valued at Rs. 6,46,00,000/-/. Out of the said amount, only a meagre sum of Rs.46,84,252/- remains unpaid. Up to this stage, there is nothing on record to show that the said amount has been forfeited by the respondents on account of breach of contract in exercise of any of the conditions of contract, nor any communication has been sent by the respondents to the applicant informing him of the reasons on the basis of which, the said amount is not payable. To the contrary, there is a clear admission by respondents in paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit to the effect that security amount has not rightly been released. There is no condition in the contract on the basis of which, the respondents can retain the amount in perpetuity. On the above premise, it is thus contended that applicant is clearly entitled to the amount prayed for. 14. According to the learned counsel for applicant, the present application is well within limitation. He, further submits that the claim of applicant is not barred by limitation. Liability has been indirectly admitted by means of letter dated 11.9.2018 (Annexure-7 to the affidavit). The limitation, if taken, from aforesaid date, will expire on 10.9.2021. However, in the interregnum, Pandemic Covid-19 stepped in. He, further submits that the claim of applicant is not barred by limitation. Liability has been indirectly admitted by means of letter dated 11.9.2018 (Annexure-7 to the affidavit). The limitation, if taken, from aforesaid date, will expire on 10.9.2021. However, in the interregnum, Pandemic Covid-19 stepped in. Considering the hardship faced by litigants on account of expiry of limitation during the course of Pandemic Covid-19, the Supreme Court took Suo-motu cognizance and has passed an order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under:- "1. Due to the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, this Court took suo motu cognizance of the situation arising from difficulties that might be faced by the litigants across the country in filing petitions/ applications/ suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central or State). By an order dated 23.03.2020 this Court extended the period of limitation prescribed under the general law or special laws whether compoundable or not with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders. The order dated 23.03.2020 was extended from time to time. Though, we have not seen the end of the pandemic, there is considerable improvement. The lockdown has been lifted and the country is returning to normalcy. Almost all the Courts and Tribunals are functioning either physically or by virtual mode. We are of the opinion that the order dated 23.03.2020 has served its purpose and in view of the changing scenario relating to the pandemic, the extension of limitation should come to an end. 2. We have considered the suggestions of the learned Attorney General for India regarding the future course of action. We deem it appropriate to issue the following directions: - 1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021. 2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 3. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 4. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state. “Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements.” 3. The Suo Motu Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly." 15. With reference to above and the averments made in paragraphs 12 and 15 of the affidavit, coupled with the fact that petitioner had already approached Delhi High Court for appointment of an Arbitrator. Counsel for applicant contends that neither the claim of applicant is barred by limitation nor the present application is barred by laches. As such, an arbitrator is liable to be appointed by this Court to resolve the dispute between the parties, as noted above. 16. Mr. Ashish Agarwal, the learned counsel for respondent has, however, vehemently opposed the present application. He submits that the contractor i.e. the applicant is himself guilty of not performing the contract as per the conditions of contract. It is on account of above, that the security amount was not released. He, further submits that the claim of applicant is hopelessly barred by limitation, inasmuch as, the contract was completed by the applicant on 16.6.2020 (vide paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit). 17. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for applicant has rejoined his earlier submissions. It is on account of above, that the security amount was not released. He, further submits that the claim of applicant is hopelessly barred by limitation, inasmuch as, the contract was completed by the applicant on 16.6.2020 (vide paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit). 17. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for applicant has rejoined his earlier submissions. With reference to above, he has invited the attention of Court to the averments made in paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents and on basis thereof, he submits that it is an undisputed fact that the contract was ultimately completed by applicant on 16.6.2020. Taking the limitation from the said date, the same shall expire on 15.06.2023. As such, the present application is well within the period of limitation. Since nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the amount due to the applicant has been forfeited under any conditions of the contract nor any communication has been sent indicating the witholding of the disputed amount, therefore, a dispute exist between the parties which is capable of being referred to arbitration. As such, present applicant is liable to be allowed. 18. Having heard Mr. P.K. Sikka along with Mr. Nitin Chopra, the learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Ashish Agarwal, the learned counsel for respondent, this Court finds that there is no dispute between the parties that they entered into a contract valued at Rs.6,46,00,000/-/. Out of said amount, only a sum of Rs.46,84,252/- remains to be paid. 19. In the counter affidavit there is nothing to indicate that the said amount has been forfeited under any conditions of contract nor there is any material to indicate the reasons why the said amount has been retained. There is nothing on record to show as to under what conditions the said amount shall become payable. To the contrary, the stand of respondents is that the said amount has not been released. 20. It is well settled that any amount due under the contract cannot be withheld in perpetuity, unless there is a legal sanction behind it. The issue as to under what authority the amount of Rs.46,84,252/- has been retained by respondents is a dispute capable of being referred to arbitration. As such, an arbitral dispute exists between the parties. In view of the law laid down in Vidya Drolia Vs. The issue as to under what authority the amount of Rs.46,84,252/- has been retained by respondents is a dispute capable of being referred to arbitration. As such, an arbitral dispute exists between the parties. In view of the law laid down in Vidya Drolia Vs. Durga Trading Corporation (2021) 2 SCC 1 , the dispute between the parties is liable to be referred to arbitration. As such, the application is liable to be allowed. 21. It is, accordingly, allowed. 22. Let Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, R/o 202, Vinayak Enclave, Ashok Nagar, Allahabad, Mob. No. 9415218815, be appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties subject to his consent in terms of Section 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 23. Registry is directed to obtain consent of proposed arbitrator in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act within three weeks. 24. List thereafter.