https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421366 A belated invocation of arbitration decades after the cause of action accrued cannot reset limitation for a Section 11(6) request. The claim arose when the work was completed in 1985/1986, but arbitration was invoked only after about thirty-two years, so the applicant could not treat the later legal notice as the starting point under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Supreme Court held that residual limitation cannot revive a dead or stale claim, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Nortel Networks India Private Limited did not assist on these facts. The application for appointment of an arbitrator was therefore barred by limitation and rejected. en-us Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Apr 2022 08:32:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421366 A belated invocation of arbitration decades after the cause of action accrued cannot reset limitation for a Section 11(6) request. The claim arose when the work was completed in 1985/1986, but arbitration was invoked only after about thirty-two years, so the applicant could not treat the later legal notice as the starting point under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Supreme Court held that residual limitation cannot revive a dead or stale claim, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Nortel Networks India Private Limited did not assist on these facts. The application for appointment of an arbitrator was therefore barred by limitation and rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421366