"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Limitation Period for Arbitration Application Commences Only After a Valid Notice Invoking Arbitration is Issued: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, has clarified the nuances of the limitation period applicable to applications for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court delineated the starting point of the limitation period, emphasizing that it begins only after a valid notice invoking arbitration is issued and the other party fails to comply with the appointment procedure agreed upon.

In the case M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Vs M/s Aptech Ltd., the petitioner, based in Afghanistan, engaged in computer education and IT training, sought the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from franchise agreements. The core issue revolved around the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the arbitration petition and whether the petitioner’s claims were time-barred.

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the applicability of the Limitation Act to arbitration petitions. It differentiated between the limitation for filing a Section 11(6) application and the limitation for raising substantive claims in arbitration. The Court held that the limitation for a Section 11(6) application begins only after a valid notice invoking arbitration is issued. The Court observed that the claims sought to be arbitrated were not ex-facie time-barred, considering the extension of the limitation period due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Thepetition under Section 11(6) was allowed, leading to the appointment of Shri Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as the sole arbitrator. The Court noted that the claims were not ex-facie time-barred on the date of commencement of the arbitration proceedings.

Date of Decision: 1st March 2024

M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. VS M/S APTECH LTD.

 

Similar News