Limitation for arbitrator appointment under arbitration law runs from accrual of the right to apply; stale claims cannot be revived by later notice.

An application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, so the three-year period runs from accrual of the right to apply. Where a contractor's final bill and payment dispute arose on non-payment within the stipulated contractual time, limitation could not be postponed indefinitely by later issuing a notice invoking arbitration. On the facts, the claims were brought after an unexplained delay of six to eight years, rendering them stale and hopelessly time-barred. The applications for appointment of an arbitrator were therefore barred by limitation and not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applications for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The limitation applicable to an application under Section 11(6) was held to be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the period of three years runs from accrual of the right to apply. The contractual scheme required submission of the final bill within the prescribed period after completion of work, and disputes regarding final payment arose when the respondent failed to make payment within the stipulated time. A contractor could not postpone limitation indefinitely by waiting for a legal notice invoking arbitration. On the facts, the claims were raised after an unexplained delay of six to eight years, making them stale and hopelessly time-barred.

Conclusion: The applications were barred by limitation and were not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for appointment of an arbitrator must be filed within three years from the accrual of the cause of action, and a stale or dead claim cannot be revived by issuing a later notice demanding arbitration.

---