{"id":293044,"date":"2023-05-25T11:30:43","date_gmt":"2023-05-25T06:00:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=293044"},"modified":"2023-05-25T19:19:18","modified_gmt":"2023-05-25T13:49:18","slug":"seeking-appointment-of-arbitrator-beyond-3-years-is-barred-by-limitation-supreme-court-reiterates-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/25\/seeking-appointment-of-arbitrator-beyond-3-years-is-barred-by-limitation-supreme-court-reiterates-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Seeking appointment of Arbitrator beyond three years is barred by limitation: Supreme Court reiterates"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/b> In a petition filed under Section 11(6)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, (\u2018the Act 1996\u2019), filed at the instance of a company based in Switzerland and engaged in the business of manufacturing of arms etc., praying for appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes and claims arising out of the Contract dated 27-03-2012 executed with the Government of India in its Ministry of Defence, the Division Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI and J.B. Pardiwala, J.<\/b> rejected the petition and held that the claim in the petition is a barred claim as the petitioner by its conduct slept over its right for more than five years.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/b> Whether time-barred claims or claims which are barred by limitation, said to be live claims, which can be referred to arbitration?<\/p>\n

The Court took note of Section 11<\/a> of the Act 1996<\/a> that provides for the appointment of arbitrators and said that no time limit has been prescribed for filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator. Further, it noted that Section 43<\/a> of the Act 1996<\/a> provides that the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to arbitrations as it applies to the proceedings in Court.<\/p>\n

The Court said that, since a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitral Tribunal is required to be filed before the High Court or the Supreme Court, Article 137 of the Schedule to the Act 1963 would apply. Further, after a plain reading of the aforesaid Article, the Court said that the period of limitation in cases covered by Article 137 is three years, and the said period would begin to run when the right to apply accrues.<\/p>\n

After taking note of Merla Ramanna<\/i> v. Nallaparaju<\/i>, (1955) 2 SCR 938<\/a> the Court said that the starting point of limitation under Article 137 is the date when \u2018the right to apply arises\u2019. This being a residuary Article to be adopted to different classes of applications, the expression \u2018the right to apply\u2019 is an expression of a broad common law principle and should be interpreted according to the circumstances of each case. \u2018The right to apply\u2019 has been interpreted to mean \u2018the right to apply first arises\u2019.<\/p>\n

The Court also referred to Section 9<\/a> of the Act 1963<\/a>, which states that where once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application stops it.<\/p>\n

The Bench laid down three principles of law that are discernible from Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi<\/i> v. Delhi Development Authority<\/i>, (1988) 2 SCC 338<\/a><\/p>\n