https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200204 The Supreme Court considered whether time spent in defective arbitration proceedings could be excluded when computing limitation for a civil suit under the Limitation Act, where the reference to arbitration had been made unilaterally without notice to the respondents. Reading Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, particularly sub-sections (3) and (5), with the limitation provisions, the Court treated the absence of notice and the improper reference as final findings. On that basis, the period spent in the arbitration proceedings was not automatically excludable for the later suit, and exclusion of the entire period was rejected, leaving the suit barred by limitation. en-us Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:12:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200204 The Supreme Court considered whether time spent in defective arbitration proceedings could be excluded when computing limitation for a civil suit under the Limitation Act, where the reference to arbitration had been made unilaterally without notice to the respondents. Reading Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, particularly sub-sections (3) and (5), with the limitation provisions, the Court treated the absence of notice and the improper reference as final findings. On that basis, the period spent in the arbitration proceedings was not automatically excludable for the later suit, and exclusion of the entire period was rejected, leaving the suit barred by limitation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200204