Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan 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