Section 11 referral can refuse dead claims where arbitration demand is manifestly time-barred and not revived by later notices.

At the Section 11(6) stage, a referral court may decline appointment of an arbitrator where the claim is manifestly ex facie time-barred or otherwise dead on the face of the record. The court ordinarily limits itself to the existence of the arbitration agreement, but it can screen out claims that are clearly non-arbitrable, stale, or barred by limitation. Applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Sections 11(6) and 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court held that repeated demand notices after expiry of limitation do not revive a claim in the absence of timely acknowledgment or payment. The appointment application was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether, at the stage of appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the referral court may refuse reference where the claim is ex facie barred by limitation and constitutes a dead claim.

Analysis: The application arose from a contractual dispute where bills had remained unpaid for several years before any effective step towards arbitration was taken. The claim was examined on the face of the pleadings and annexures, including the dates of the bills, completion certificate, and successive demand notices. The governing principle at the Section 11 stage is that the referral court must ordinarily confine itself to the existence of the arbitration agreement, but it retains a narrow prima facie power to screen out claims that are manifestly non-arbitrable, ex facie time-barred, or deadwood. The court applied the settled limitation framework under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 11(6) and Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and held that repeated demand notices after expiry of the limitation period do not revive the claim absent acknowledgment or payment within time.

Conclusion: The claim was held to be ex facie stale and barred by limitation, and the referral court declined to appoint an arbitral tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The application for appointment of an arbitrator failed because the dispute was found to be demonstrably dead and not fit for reference to arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi: At the Section 11 stage, a referral court may refuse appointment of an arbitrator where the claim is manifestly and ex facie time-barred or otherwise dead on the face of the record, even though the court's scrutiny is otherwise limited.

---