https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438046 A petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 may be refused where the underlying claims are manifestly stale, dead, or ex facie time-barred, because the Court need not refer non-existent disputes to arbitration. In the absence of an express limitation period in Section 11(6), Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs the application, and time begins when the dispute is clearly crystallised by denial or repudiation. Mere correspondence or settlement talks do not stop limitation once it has started to run under Section 9 of the Limitation Act. On the stated facts, the claims were already barred and not referable to arbitration. en-us Thu, 18 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 May 2026 11:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438046 A petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 may be refused where the underlying claims are manifestly stale, dead, or ex facie time-barred, because the Court need not refer non-existent disputes to arbitration. In the absence of an express limitation period in Section 11(6), Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs the application, and time begins when the dispute is clearly crystallised by denial or repudiation. Mere correspondence or settlement talks do not stop limitation once it has started to run under Section 9 of the Limitation Act. On the stated facts, the claims were already barred and not referable to arbitration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438046