Acknowledgment in ledger accounts can extend limitation, while director disqualification alone does not void company representation.

Acknowledgment of liability appearing in a party's own pleadings and ledger accounts can extend limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the tribunal may rely on admitted documents already on record even without a separate formal pleading. The commentary also explains that disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 does not by itself vacate a director's office, and Section 167(1)(a) should be read so that automatic vacation does not follow from that disqualification alone. On that basis, directors remain competent to act for the company and file the reference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim allowed by the arbitral tribunal was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the arbitration application was not maintainable because it was filed through directors disqualified under the Companies Act, 2013.

Issue (i): Whether the claim allowed by the arbitral tribunal was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The arbitral record contained the appellant's own pleadings and annexed ledger accounts showing the respondent's credit balance continuing in the appellant's accounts up to 31 March 2018. The Court held that these materials amounted to an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court also held that the arbitral tribunal was entitled to rely on admitted documents already brought on record, and that the absence of a separate formal pleading did not defeat the claim in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected and the claim was held to be within limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitration application was not maintainable because it was filed through directors disqualified under the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The Court construed Sections 164 and 167 of the Companies Act, 2013 harmoniously and held that disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) does not automatically vacate the office of a director. The Court read Section 167(1)(a) down so that the vacation rule does not apply to disqualification under Section 164(2), and further held that the 2018 proviso introduced a restriction from that date rather than altering the pre-existing position. On that basis, the directors were competent to act for the company and file the reference.

Conclusion: The maintainability objection was rejected and the arbitration application was held maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The award was sustained, the challenge under Section 34 failed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An acknowledgment reflected in the opposing party's admitted account documents can extend limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 does not by itself cause automatic vacation of a director's office or invalidate representation of the company.

---