Limitation in section 11 arbitration petitions cannot defeat appointment where claim survival depends on disputed facts.

Under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court may refuse appointment only if the claim is plainly and patently dead on the face of the record. Where limitation depends on disputed bills, certificates, payments, and surrounding documents, the issue should be decided by the arbitral forum rather than at the threshold. On the facts, the payment was described as relating only to the undisputed part of the final bill, so further claims were not clearly extinguished. The refusal to appoint an arbitrator was therefore unsustainable, the appeals were allowed, and the matter was remitted for consequential steps toward appointment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim raised in the section 11 petition was a live claim or a dead claim barred by limitation so as to justify refusal to appoint an arbitrator.

Analysis: The Court held that while a Chief Justice or designated Judge under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 may examine whether a claim is evidently and patently long time-barred, such scrutiny is appropriate only where the claim is clearly dead on the face of the record. On the facts, the appellant's case was that the payment made on 10.04.2001 was only towards the undisputed portion of the final bill and that disputed claims had never been adjudicated. The additional documents also indicated that the payment was described as payment of the undisputed part of the final bill, which supported the case that further claims survived. The question whether the claim was barred by limitation depended on scrutiny of the bills, certificates, and surrounding materials, and therefore required adjudication by the arbitral forum rather than rejection at the threshold.

Conclusion: The claim was not a dead claim, and the refusal to appoint an arbitrator was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, the refusal orders were set aside, and the matter was sent back for consequential steps toward appointment of an arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court may decline appointment only where the claim is plainly and patently dead; where the alleged bar of limitation depends on disputed facts and documents, the issue must ordinarily be left to the arbitral tribunal.

---