Limitation in stock exchange arbitration applies to later-filed claims even for earlier transactions; time-bar upheld

An amendment to Stock Exchange Bye-law 252(2) making the Limitation Act applicable governed claims filed after the amendment, even where the underlying transactions pre-dated it, because limitation is procedural and no vested right existed to an unlimited period. The claimant's arbitral reference was also time-barred: the limitation period ran from the operative date of the amended bye-law, the time spent before the Investor's Grievances Redressal Cell had to be excluded, and the claim was still filed beyond the three-year period. No acknowledgment of liability or part payment extended time, so the limitation-based rejection of the claim was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendment to Bye-law 252(2) of the Bombay Stock Exchange, introducing applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, governed claims arising from transactions entered into before the amendment but filed thereafter; (ii) whether the appellant's arbitral claim was filed within limitation after excluding the period spent before the Investor's Grievances Redressal Cell.

Issue (i): Whether the amendment to Bye-law 252(2) of the Bombay Stock Exchange, introducing applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, governed claims arising from transactions entered into before the amendment but filed thereafter.

Analysis: The dispute arose in the context of statutory arbitration under the bye-laws of the Stock Exchange. Before the 29 August 1998 amendment, no specific limitation period governed such claims. The Court held that limitation is a matter of procedure and that, once the amended bye-law came into force, claims filed thereafter would be governed by the amended limitation regime even in respect of earlier transactions. No vested right existed in favour of the appellant to continue with an unlimited period merely because no limitation applied earlier.

Conclusion: The amended Bye-law 252(2) applied to the appellant's claim, and the appellant could not claim an unlimited period of limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's arbitral claim was filed within limitation after excluding the period spent before the Investor's Grievances Redressal Cell.

Analysis: The Court held that the limitation period began to run from the date the amended bye-law became operative, and the time spent before the Investor's Grievances Redressal Cell was to be excluded for computation. Even after such exclusion, the statement of claim was filed beyond the permissible three-year period. The Court also found no acknowledgment of liability or part payment within limitation to extend time.

Conclusion: The appellant's claim was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral award rejecting the claim on limitation and the order refusing to interfere were sustained, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In statutory arbitration, an amendment making the Limitation Act applicable governs claims filed after the amendment even if the underlying transactions are earlier, and a claimant cannot rely on the pre-amendment absence of limitation to preserve an unlimited right to sue.

---