Limitation for arbitration appointment starts only after notice and failure to concur, not on mere contract expiry.

Limitation for an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act begins only when the statutory right to seek appointment of an arbitrator accrues under Article 137. That right arises after notice is served and the other party fails to concur in the appointment within fifteen clear days. The mere expiry of the contract does not itself start limitation, because the Section 8 procedure must first be triggered. On the facts, the applications were filed after notice and within the prescribed period, so they were not time-barred and the contrary view was legally incorrect.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The period of limitation under Article 137 begins when the right to apply under Section 8 accrues. That right arises only after the contractual procedure is set in motion by notice and the other party fails to concur in the appointment of an arbitrator within fifteen clear days. On the facts, the notice was served on 12.9.1976 and the applications under Section 8 were filed thereafter within the prescribed period. The expiry of the contract did not by itself start limitation, because the statutory requirements of Section 8 had to be satisfied before the right to apply could arise.

Conclusion: The application under Section 8 was not barred by limitation and the finding to the contrary was in law; the conclusion was in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: For an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, limitation under Article 137 starts only when the statutory right to seek appointment of an arbitrator accrues after service of notice and failure of the other party to concur within the prescribed period.

---