TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent from Agreement dated 02.05.2014 ('Agreement' for short), which related to the sale, implementation and installation by the petitioner of certain hardware and multi-media system accessories along with software for the purpose of setting-up 24 Smart Learn Classes at several schools run by the respondents. 2. Notice on this petition was issued on 25.01.2022. 3. Mr. Zeeshan Hashmi, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to clause 11 of the Agreement which comprises the arbitration agreement between the parties; and contemplates reference of disputes between them to arbitration; with courts of law at New Delhi to have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes that so arise. 4. Although ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate of actual realisation/payment. "6. Our Client had sent Legal Notice dated 04.01.2017 and a reminder notice dated 24.03.2017 for the recovery of outstanding dues. Further, Our Client has sent an Intimation Notice dated 22.08.2017 before the initiation of the judicial proceedings to you the Noticee. "7. A dispute has arisen between you and Our Client, due to the fact that you the Noticee have completely failed to fulfil your obligations/liabilities with respect to the payment to be made to Our Client as per the terms and conditions of the Agreements. You have therefore, completely failed to perform your contractual obligations which have caused irreparable harm to Our Client's reputation and goodwill. You have furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10. In response to the objection taken, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that, as is evident from Annexure-3 to Agreement dated 31.03.2015, the schedule of payments for the respondents to pay for the hardware extended upto May 2018; and furthermore, that in para 11 of reply dated 31.08.2021 issued by the respondents, they have admitted that the hardware in question was lying in the premises of the respondents until 2019 in the following words: "11. My clients states that your client representatives unlawfully entered into my clients school premises in the year 2019 and took all the Hardwar (sic) and Multimedia accessories from my client school without the permission and consent of my clients. The act of your client&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration, otherwise it would encroach upon what is essentially a matter to be determined by the tribunal. * * * * * "51. The period of limitation for issuing notice of arbitration would not get extended by mere exchange of letters, [S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P., (1989) 4 SCC 582] or mere settlement discussions, where a final bill is rejected by making deductions or otherwise. Sections 5 to 20 of the Limitation Act do not exclude the time taken on account of settlement discussions. Section 9 of the Limitation Act makes it clear that: "where once the time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application stops it." There must be a clear notice invoking arbitration setting out t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time." (emphasis supplied) 14. What is evident from a conspectus of the foregoing, is that the petitioner's claim against the respondents as raised in invocation notice dated 28.07.2021 is only one: viz. for payment of arrears of licence fee/other dues amounting to Rs. 29,28,100/-, which is founded upon the termination of the contract by the petitioner vide notice dated 04.01.2017. To be sure, the petitioner's invocation notice does not contain any reference to any claim for recovery of hardware, supposedly lying with the respondents upto ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claim is as follows: having terminated the contract with the respondents vide notice dated 04.01.2017, and the respondents having failed to pay the amounts claimed to be due, the petitioner ought to have issued the notice invoking arbitration within 03 years of that date, viz. by or before 03.01.2020. However, the petitioner issued the notice invoking arbitration only on 28.07.2021, which was evidently beyond the limitation prescribed in law. 18. To be clear, the limitation in this case is not saved even by order dated 10.01.2022 made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 03/2020 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct that running of limitation would be held in abeyance for the perio....