Limitation for reimbursement claims under an MOU turns on when cause of action accrues, not later negotiations.

A claim for reimbursement of pre-project expenditure under an MOU was held time-barred because limitation began when the claimant treated the contract as terminated and sought reimbursement in December 2001. A later letter was treated only as a reminder, not as a fresh termination that would restart limitation. Subsequent negotiations or renegotiation did not suspend limitation absent an acknowledged liability or a clear agreement extending time. The arbitral tribunal had considered the correspondence, and the claimant's reliance on quantum meruit did not take the money claim outside the limitation bar. The challenge under Section 34 therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claimant's challenge under Section 34 to the arbitral award could succeed when the arbitral tribunal held the money claim barred by limitation, despite reliance on subsequent correspondence and alleged negotiations.

Analysis: The decisive question was when the cause of action accrued for the claim to recover pre-project expenditure under the MOU. The correspondence showed that the claimant had itself treated the contract as terminated in December 2001 and had demanded reimbursement from that point. The later letter of December 2002 was treated as a reminder and not as a fresh termination that would postpone limitation. Mere negotiations or renegotiation after an accrued cause of action do not suspend the running of limitation in the absence of any acknowledged liability or a clear agreement extending time. The tribunal had considered the material correspondence and the plea based on quantum meruit did not take the claim outside the law of limitation.

Conclusion: The claim was rightly held time-barred, and the challenge to the award failed.

---