Section 11 referral limits the court to prima facie scrutiny; substantive limitation questions belong to the arbitral tribunal.

At the Section 11 stage, the referral court's role is confined to a limited prima facie scrutiny, and it should not undertake an elaborate examination of whether the underlying monetary claims are time-barred. Limitation as to the substantive claim is ordinarily for the arbitral tribunal, with refusal at referral stage reserved for rare cases where the claims are manifestly dead, ex facie time-barred, or otherwise non-arbitrable. The Court also held that limitation for the Section 11 application runs from the failure or refusal to act on the notice invoking arbitration; on that basis, the petitions were within time and the disputes were referable to arbitration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be declined on the ground that the underlying monetary claims were ex facie and hopelessly time-barred, or whether that question had to be left to the arbitral tribunal.

Analysis: The referral court's role at the Section 11 stage is confined to a limited prima facie inquiry. The issue of limitation, as it concerns the admissibility of the substantive claim, is ordinarily for the arbitral tribunal. Judicial refusal at the referral stage is warranted only in the rare category of cases where it is manifest that the claims are dead, ex facie time-barred, or otherwise non-arbitrable. The Court further held that the limitation relevant to the Section 11 application itself had to be computed from the failure or refusal to act on the notice invoking arbitration, and that the petitions filed after the earlier High Court proceedings were within time. The competing contentions on when the cause of action arose, whether there was continuing breach, and whether the petitioner was entitled to the claimed shares went to the merits and were not fit for adjudication at the referral stage.

Conclusion: The limitation objection against reference to arbitration was rejected, and the disputes were held referable to arbitration.

Final Conclusion: The Court held that a Section 11 referral court must not conduct an elaborate enquiry into the time-bar of the underlying claims and should appoint an arbitrator when the application itself is within limitation, leaving substantive limitation and merits to the tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: At the Section 11 stage, the court must confine itself to a limited prima facie scrutiny and may refuse reference only where the underlying claims are manifestly dead or ex facie time-barred; otherwise, questions of substantive limitation and merits belong to the arbitral tribunal.

---