Arbitration reference and limitation: section 20 applications fall outside article 181, and time-bar issues are for the arbitrator.

An application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing an arbitration agreement and seeking reference to arbitration was held not to fall within article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, because that article had been confined to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 37(1) did not empower the court to reject the application as time-barred at the reference stage, since limitation of the underlying claim was a matter for the arbitrator after reference, not for the court while deciding whether to file the agreement and order reference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing an arbitration agreement and seeking reference to arbitration is governed by article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908; (ii) Whether section 37(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 authorises the court to reject such an application as time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing an arbitration agreement and seeking reference to arbitration is governed by article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Analysis: Article 181, though general in language, had for long been treated as confined to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. The earlier line of authority proceeded on that basis, and the amendment of articles 158 and 178 by the Arbitration Act did not alter the settled understanding of article 181. An application under the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing an arbitration agreement is not an application under the Code of Civil Procedure and does not fall within article 181 merely because it is made to a civil court.

Conclusion: The application under section 20 was not governed by article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Issue (ii): Whether section 37(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 authorises the court to reject such an application as time-barred.

Analysis: Section 37(1) makes the provisions of the Limitation Act applicable to arbitrations as they apply to proceedings in court. That provision regulates the arbitrator's determination of the dispute after reference, not the court's power at the stage of filing the arbitration agreement and making a reference. At that stage the court is concerned only with the existence of a valid written arbitration agreement and a referable dispute within its jurisdiction, not with whether the substantive claim is barred by limitation.

Conclusion: Section 37(1) did not justify dismissal of the application on limitation grounds.

Final Conclusion: The court held that the application for filing the arbitration agreement could not be rejected as barred by limitation, and the order refusing reference was set aside in favour of restoring the trial court's order making the reference.

Ratio Decidendi: An application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is outside article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and the question whether the underlying claim is time-barred is for the arbitrator, not the court, at the stage of filing the agreement and ordering reference.

---