https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463146 At the Section 11(6) stage, a referral court may decline appointment of an arbitrator where the claim is manifestly ex facie time-barred or otherwise dead on the face of the record. The court ordinarily limits itself to the existence of the arbitration agreement, but it can screen out claims that are clearly non-arbitrable, stale, or barred by limitation. Applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Sections 11(6) and 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court held that repeated demand notices after expiry of limitation do not revive a claim in the absence of timely acknowledgment or payment. The appointment application was therefore rejected. en-us Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Aug 2025 20:58:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463146 At the Section 11(6) stage, a referral court may decline appointment of an arbitrator where the claim is manifestly ex facie time-barred or otherwise dead on the face of the record. The court ordinarily limits itself to the existence of the arbitration agreement, but it can screen out claims that are clearly non-arbitrable, stale, or barred by limitation. Applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Sections 11(6) and 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court held that repeated demand notices after expiry of limitation do not revive a claim in the absence of timely acknowledgment or payment. The appointment application was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463146