SUNIL KUMAR Vs. AAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first and foremost question that calls for determination in these proceedings is whether the instant petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator on account of failure of the respondent to concur for such an appointment is barred by limitation or not.

(2.) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to the limitation for initiation of arbitration proceedings may be referred to. In the State of Orissa and another Vs. Sri Damodar Das AIR 1996 SC 942, the Supreme Court while relying upon "Russell on Arbitration by Anthony walton (19th edition)" held that the period of limitation for the commencement of an arbitration runs from the date on which, had there been no arbitration clause, the cause of action would have accrued: "just as in the case of actions the claim is not to be brought after the expiration of a specified number of years from the date on which the cause of action accrued, so in the case of arbiotrators, the claim is not be put forward after the expiration of the specified number of years from the date when the claim accrued. Even if the arbitration clause contains a provision that no cause of action shall accrue in respect of any matter agreed to be referred until an award is made time still runs from the normal date when the cause of action Would have accrued if there had been no arbitration clause.

(3.) The Supreme Court also interpreted the word "action" and "cause of arbitration" in relation to Section 37(1) of the Act like this:-