Arbitration counter-claims remain maintainable after Section 11 appointment where the agreement covers all disputes.

In an arbitration commenced through appointment under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a respondent is not barred from raising a counter-claim merely because it was not separately noticed at the Section 11 stage. Where the arbitration agreement covers all disputes, appointment of the tribunal operates as an implied reference of those disputes. Section 23, read with Section 2(9), permits a respondent to state a defence and counter-claim, and the Limitation Act treats a counter-claim as instituted when made in court. Section 21 governs commencement for limitation purposes, but it does not prevent a counter-claim in a pending reference.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in an arbitration commenced by appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a respondent can raise and maintain a counter-claim even though it was not separately noticed or specifically referred at the stage of the Section 11 proceedings.

Analysis: Section 11 empowers the Chief Justice or his designate to appoint the arbitrator or take necessary measures in accordance with the agreed appointment procedure; it does not require the court to formulate or refer the disputes for adjudication unless the contract itself is confined to specifically enumerated disputes. Where the arbitration agreement contemplates reference of all disputes, the appointment of the arbitral tribunal operates as an implied reference of those disputes. Section 23, read with Section 2(9), permits the respondent to state its defence and counter-claim, and the Limitation Act, 1963 treats a counter-claim as instituted on the date it is made in court, which supports its maintainability in arbitration. Section 21 is relevant to commencement of arbitral proceedings for limitation purposes, but it does not bar a counter-claim in a pending reference.

Conclusion: The respondent was not precluded from raising the counter-claim, and the arbitrator had jurisdiction to entertain it under the agreement in question.

---