Limitation under Article 137 and respect for named arbitrator clauses govern Section 20 arbitration applications.

An application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, so the three-year period runs from when the dispute arises; on the facts, the right to apply accrued when the State served the demand notice, and the application was therefore time-barred. Where an arbitration agreement names a specific arbitrator, the court must ordinarily refer the dispute to that named arbitrator and cannot ignore the contractual appointment or call for panels of arbitrators unless the named arbitrator refuses or is unable to act. The challenged order was therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and was barred by limitation; (ii) whether, where the arbitration agreement named a specific arbitrator, the court could ignore that clause and appoint another arbitrator or call for panels of arbitrators.

Issue (i): Whether an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Article 137 applies to applications under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The period of three years begins when the right to apply accrues, and in the context of Section 20 that right accrues when the difference or dispute arises between the parties. On the facts, the dispute had arisen when the State served the demand notice claiming recovery for loss, and the later request for reference to arbitration did not postpone the accrual of the right to apply.

Conclusion: The application under Section 20 was barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether, where the arbitration agreement named a specific arbitrator, the court could ignore that clause and appoint another arbitrator or call for panels of arbitrators.

Analysis: Where the agreement itself specifies the arbitrator, the court must effect reference to that named arbitrator if the matter is otherwise referable to arbitration. The court gets jurisdiction to appoint another arbitrator only if the named arbitrator refuses or fails to act, or where the agreement does not provide for an agreed appointment and the parties cannot agree upon one. Calling for panels of arbitrators was inconsistent with the contractual stipulation naming the arbitrator.

Conclusion: The court could not ignore the named arbitrator or appoint another arbitrator in the manner directed by the Subordinate Judge.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order of dismissal left undisturbed the finding that the Section 20 application was time-barred, while reaffirming that a contractual nomination of an arbitrator must ordinarily be respected.

Ratio Decidendi: An application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the right to apply accrues when the dispute arises; where the agreement names an arbitrator, the court must refer the dispute to that arbitrator unless the named arbitrator is unable or unwilling to act.

---