No Prudent Man Would Keep Quiet For 15 Years: HP High Court Rejects Suit For Specific Performance Of Oral Agreement To Sell Merely Using A Knife In A Sudden Quarrel Does Not Automatically Establish Intent To Murder: Delhi High Court Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Violates Article 21: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Key Accused In Excise Policy Case Failure To Deposit Security Costs At Time Of Presentation Is An Incurable Defect Mandating Dismissal Of Election Petition: Bombay High Court Suppressing Call Records Because They "Go Against Prosecution" Creates Serious Infirmity: Madras HC Acquits Wife In Murder Case Clean Encumbrance Certificate Cannot Override 'Lis Pendens'; Pendente Lite Purchaser Bound By Result Of Suit: Madras High Court Busy Schedule And Travel Do Not Constitute 'Sufficient Cause' To Condone Delay In Commercial Appeals: Karnataka High Court Marital Status Irrelevant When Protecting Life And Liberty Of Consenting Adults In Live-In Relationship: Delhi High Court Intermediary State GST Officers Cannot Detain Inter-State Goods Merely Passing Through The State: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rajasthan Appellate Tribunal Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear Compulsory Retirement Disputes: High Court High Court Cannot Appreciate Evidence Or Decide Disputed Facts To Quash Criminal Case Under Section 482 CrPC: Madras High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Introduces 'Descending Scale Model' For POCSO Sentencing, Holds 'Younger The Victim, Higher The Sentence' Killing Over Land Dispute Without Premeditation Using Agricultural Tool Is Not Murder But Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Accused Cannot Be Discharged Merely On Ground Of Defective Or Tainted Investigation: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To End "Mahabharata" Matrimonial Battle, Quashes Lawyer-Husband's 80 Cases Against Wife And Her Advocates Grave Suspicion Sufficient To Frame Charge: J&K High Court Refuses To Discharge Officials In Kerosene Scam, Clarifies Second FIR Permissibility Defect Of Non-Speaking Review Order Cured If Appellate Court Examines And Reasons Out All Grounds: Delhi High Court Property Seller During Pendency Of Suit Does Not Lose Locus To Prosecute Case Unless Restrained By Court: Karnataka High Court Panchayat Lacks Power To Reject Factory Installation; Public Protest No Ground To Deny Statutory Permits: Kerala High Court

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