Limitation for arbitration appointment runs from first accrual of the claim, not from unproved later correspondence or reminders.

For an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the limitation period runs for three years from the date the cause of action first arises, applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The date of commencement of arbitral proceedings is when the request for reference to arbitration is received by the respondent, and later reminders or correspondence do not extend time unless the record shows a bona fide negotiation history and a real breaking point delaying invocation. On the facts noted, the final bills had become due long before the arbitration notice was served, and the asserted negotiation history was not established, so the claim was treated as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applications for appointment of an arbitrator were barred by limitation, and whether the cause of action arose from the final bills or from the later correspondence between the parties.

Analysis: For an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the relevant limitation period is three years from the date when the cause of action first arises, applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The date of commencement of arbitral proceedings is the date on which a request for reference to arbitration is received by the respondent, and where notice is served after the 1996 Act came into force, the 1996 Act applies. Mere reminders or subsequent correspondence do not extend limitation unless the pleading and record show a bona fide negotiation history from which the Court can identify the real breaking point at which arbitration became inevitable. In the present case, the final bills had become due in 1983 and 1989, the notice for arbitration was served only in 2002, and the record did not substantiate a negotiation history capable of postponing accrual of the cause of action. The claim of undue hardship was also rejected.

Conclusion: The applications were barred by limitation and the request for appointment of an arbitrator failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were liable to be dismissed because the arbitration claims had become time-barred long before invocation of arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi: In commercial disputes, limitation for seeking appointment of an arbitrator runs from the date the claim first accrues, and it is not postponed by mere reminders or unproved negotiations; time is extended only where the record establishes a bona fide negotiation history and a later breaking point.

---