JATIN SATIK Vs. SANCHITA BERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the applicant for appointment of arbitrator to resolve dispute between the parties.

(2.) The plea taken in the application is that on 21/5/2014 the applicant had entered into an agreement with the respondent for purchase of a flat and out of the total consideration of Rs.26,00,000.00, the applicant had paid the part consideration of Rs.13,50,000.00, thereafter dispute had arisen between the parties, therefore, applicant had moved to the competent Court for interim protection in terms of the Sec. 9 of the Act being Misc. Case 143 of 2015 (Arb) and by order dtd. 3/6/2015 the competent Court had granted the interim protection which was extended from time to time and finally the interim order was vacated and the application under Sec. 9 was disposed of by order dtd. 15/2/2022. Applicant had sent the notice for appointment of arbitrator to the respondent on 8/2/2018 which was replied by the Counsel for the respondent on 16/2/2018 suggesting the names of two arbitrators. Since there was no consensus about the arbitrators, therefore, this application has been filed on 14/6/2022.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the application has been filed after 3 years from the date cause of action arose and that limitation prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act is applicable for filing an application under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration Act, therefore, after expiry of the said limitation, the application cannot be entertained.