MATHA MANIKESHWARI ENTERPRICES Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties.

(2.) In this matter, there is no dispute as to the existence, validity and legality of the arbitration agreement. Only dispute, as raised by the respondents, is that the claim has become a dead one.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that for the purpose of entertaining this application the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of refusal to refer the dispute. According to him, after making several demands and requests, the refusal came only on 20th January 2009 stating that the dispute is not required to be referred to the arbitrator under the arbitration mechanism as the claim has become barred. He says that the period of limitation under the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will be computed from 20th January 2009, and this application has been made perfectly within the time as above. He further argues that the question of limitation with regard to the merit of the case should not be looked into at this stage on this application. Besides, he says, number of documents having been exchanged between the parties and it will appear therefrom that that there has been lawful acknowledgment of debts and the applicant in support of his contention submits that the Courts will not look into the question of limitation with regard to the merit of the claim and it is the domain of the learned arbitrator. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Major (Retd) Inder Singh Rekhi Vs. Delhi Development Authority, 1988 2 SCC 338 and also the decision in the case of Schlumberger Asia Services Limited Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, 2013 7 SCC 562.