Limitation findings in arbitration can be interim awards and are independently challengeable; rejection of limitation is not a Section 16 jurisdiction ruling.

An arbitral award that finally determines limitation is an interim award because it conclusively resolves one dispute between the parties under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; it is separately challengeable under Section 34. Rejection of a limitation plea is not a ruling on jurisdiction under Section 16, because that provision is confined to the tribunal's competence, constitution, and scope of the arbitration agreement. A limitation decision is an adjudication on the merits of the claim, so the direct appeal structure under Section 37 does not apply to a rejected limitation objection. The contrary view was set aside and the Section 34 challenge was held maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an arbitral award deciding the issue of limitation finally is an interim award within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and is separately challengeable under Section 34; (ii) whether rejection of a plea of limitation is a ruling on jurisdiction attracting Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the appeal structure under Section 37.

Issue (i): whether an arbitral award deciding the issue of limitation finally is an interim award within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and is separately challengeable under Section 34.

Analysis: Section 2(1)(c) includes an interim award within the expression "arbitral award". Section 31(6) permits an interim arbitral award on any matter on which a final award may be made. The statutory scheme, read with Section 32(1), shows that an arbitral tribunal may finally decide one or more issues at an intermediate stage, even though other issues remain pending. An award that conclusively determines the issue of limitation finally decides one dispute between the parties and is therefore an interim award.

Conclusion: Yes. The limitation award is an interim award and is independently amenable to challenge under Section 34.

Issue (ii): whether rejection of a plea of limitation is a ruling on jurisdiction attracting Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the appeal structure under Section 37.

Analysis: Section 16 embodies the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle in the narrow sense of the tribunal's authority to rule on the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, the tribunal's constitution, and whether matters fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. A decision on limitation is an adjudication on the merits of the claim and not an acceptance of a plea that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction. The direct appeal under Section 37(2)(a) is confined to orders accepting a plea under Section 16(2) or 16(3), not rejecting it. A limitation ruling, therefore, does not attract the drill of Section 16(5) and (6).

Conclusion: No. Rejection of a limitation plea is not a Section 16 jurisdictional ruling and does not postpone the Section 34 challenge until the end of the arbitration.

Final Conclusion: The limitation award was a separately challengeable interim award, and the proceedings under Section 34 were maintainable; the contrary view of the courts below was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral determination that finally resolves a substantive issue between the parties is an interim award challengeable under Section 34, whereas Section 16 is confined to true jurisdictional objections relating to the tribunal's competence in the narrow statutory sense.

---