RAVINDRA Vs. DEVENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is preferred under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) for appointment of Arbitrator. The gist of the averment in the application is that non-applicant 1 is an agent of the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and operates a petrol pump under the name and style "M/s. Deven Automobile " which is situated on Nagpur-Kalmeshwar Road. For diverse reasons, the non-applicant 1 was facing difficulties in operating the petrol pump and approached the applicant to take over the agency. Negotiations ensued, which culminated into an agreement dtd. 23/3/2010. Certain disputes arose, and the applicant instituted Special Civil Suit 585/2013 in which non-applicant 1 preferred an application under Sec. 8 of the Act for referring the dispute to an arbitrator in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement dtd. 23/3/2010. The Civil Judge allowed the application under Sec. 8 of the Act vide order dtd. 18/10/2014. The applicant approached the High Court in civil revision challenging the order of the Civil Judge whereby the parties were directed to refer the dispute to the arbitrator. The High Court rejected the civil revision application vide order dtd. 20/9/2017. The applicant contends that since the order of the Civil Judge dtd. 18/10/2014 was confirmed, the applicant requested the non-applicant 1 to appoint an arbitrator with the consent of all the stake holders, and since the non-applicant 1 did not act, the applicant issued notice dtd. 13/4/2018 informing the non-applicants of the appointment of an arbitrator. The non-applicants did not comply with the request to contact the arbitrator named in the notice dtd. 13/4/2018, and hence the applicant is constrained to approach this Court under Sec. 11 of the Act.

(2.) The non-applicant 1 has opposed the application under Sec. 11 of the Act, inter alia contending that the application under Sec. 11 is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is submitted that the claim itself is time barred and it would be an exercise in futility to appoint an arbitrator. Similar contentions are raised in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the non-applicant 2 who additionally contends that there is no arbitrable dispute between the applicant and non-applicant 2.

(3.) The applicant has filed a rejoinder contending that the limitation for invoking the provisions of Sec. 11 of the Act shall stand triggered only with the rejection of the civil revision application on 20/9/2017, and therefore, the application under Sec. 11 of the Act is within limitation. The applicant contends that the time consumed in the disposal of the civil revision application will have to be excluded in view of the provisions of Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act).