TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Application under Arbitration Act dismissed as time-barred; 1994 dispute, 1998 filing beyond limitation.</h1> <h3>MVV Satyanarayana Versus Union of India</h3> The court dismissed the application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as time-barred. The dispute arose in 1994, but the ... Appointment of arbitrator Issues:1. Whether the application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is barred by limitationRs.Analysis:The applicant was assigned the task of unloading rails in 1988, completed it the same year, and submitted the bill in 1991. The dispute arose in 1994 when the applicant requested arbitration for a claim of Rs. 20,74,875. The respondents argued that the application is time-barred under section 43 of the Arbitration Act, as the dispute was raised after final payment without protest, and the claims were excluded under the General Conditions of Contract.The court referred to precedents like Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P.K.K. Amsom and Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi v. Delhi Development Authority to establish that the Limitation Act applies to arbitrations. It emphasized that the right to claim payment arose when the work was completed, final payment was received, and the dispute was raised, not when reminders were sent. The application for an arbitrator was filed in 1998, beyond the three-year limitation period under article 137 of the Limitation Act.Citing Panchu Gopal Bose v. Board of Trustees for Port of Calcutta and State of Orissa v. Sri Damodar Das, the court highlighted that the cause of arbitration accrues when one party serves notice for arbitrator appointment. It rejected the applicant's argument to appoint an arbitrator to decide on limitation, stating that the application was indeed time-barred since the cause of action arose in 1994, and the application was filed in 1998.Ultimately, the court dismissed the application as barred by limitation under article 137 of the Limitation Act, as the right to apply for an arbitrator had accrued in 1994, and the application was filed in 1998, exceeding the three-year limit. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
TaxTMI 
