https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308203 A Section 11 petition for appointment of an arbitrator was rejected because the underlying claim was ex facie time-barred. The Court held that the right to apply accrued when payment was allegedly withheld after termination of the contract in January 2017, so the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act expired before the arbitration notice issued in July 2021. Later correspondence, the respondent's consent to appointment, and the Supreme Court's suo motu extension of limitation did not revive the claim because limitation had already run out before the suspension period began. A hardware recovery claim could not be considered, as it was not part of the invocation notice. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jun 2023 22:32:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308203 A Section 11 petition for appointment of an arbitrator was rejected because the underlying claim was ex facie time-barred. The Court held that the right to apply accrued when payment was allegedly withheld after termination of the contract in January 2017, so the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act expired before the arbitration notice issued in July 2021. Later correspondence, the respondent's consent to appointment, and the Supreme Court's suo motu extension of limitation did not revive the claim because limitation had already run out before the suspension period began. A hardware recovery claim could not be considered, as it was not part of the invocation notice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308203