Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court Section 149 IPC Cannot Be Invoked If Number Of Convicted Persons Falls Below Five After Acquittal Of Co-Accused: Allahabad High Court Requirement Of 'Clear Seven Days' Notice For No-Confidence Motion Under West Bengal Panchayat Act Is Procedural, Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court Cooperative Society’s General Body Cannot Ratify Appointment Made In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Will Executed In Hospital Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Illness Doesn't Equal Unsound Mind: Delhi High Court Exacting Work From Teachers Without Paying Salary Amounts To 'Begar', Violates Article 23: Bombay High Court General & Omnibus Charge Sheet Lacking Individual Roles Of Accused In Matrimonial Case Is Abuse Of Process: Calcutta High Court Admission Of Claim By IRP Not An 'Acknowledgment Of Liability' Under Section 18 Limitation Act To Extend Limitation: Supreme Court Special Appeal Against Order Refusing To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Merits Of Original Case Not Decided: Allahabad High Court Prior Sanction Not Required For Magistrate To Direct FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC; It Is A Pre-Cognizance Stage: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Create Or Expand Criminal Offences In Absence Of Legislative Action: Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Specific Hate Speech Law State Cannot Reopen Regularisation Issues That Attained Finality; ISRO Must Grant Permanent Status To Daily-Wagers: Supreme Court Plaintiffs Seeking Declaration Of Title Must Succeed On Strength Of Own Title, Not Weakness Of Defendant’s Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court Interest Of Justice Demands Child Of Tender Age Remains In Mother's Custody: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Debtors Cannot Approbate And Reprobate; Must Adhere To Agreed Valuation In Compromise Decree: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores NICE Project Land Valuation Material Omissions In Section 161 Statements Cannot Be Cured By Improvements During Trial: Supreme Court Section 498A IPC | Courts Must Guard Against Roping In All Family Members Without Specific Evidence Of Individual Roles: Supreme Court Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Pawan Khera In Forgery Case, Says Allegations Prima Facie Appear Politically Motivated

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.

 

Latest Legal News