TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had been made to the other party, such dispute shall be settled by an arbitrator. The Chief General Manager, West Bengal Telecom Circle or any person appointed by him, shall be the sole arbitrator. 2. The agreement between the parties was entered into on September 28, 2004. The work orders were issued sometime in 2008 and 2009. The petitioner contends to have completed the work and submitted its bills. Annexure-D contains the bills. Out of the three bills, two are dated April 20, 2010 and the third one is dated April 22, 2010. Certification of completion to that effect was issued by the Junior Telecom Officer, BSNL, Diamond Harbour, sometime in 2011. 3. The petitioner contends that the payment as raised by the petitioner, had not been made. The petitioner requested the authority by a letter dated February 2, 2017 to pay up the long pending outstanding bills amounting to Rs.8,96,939/-. A reminder was sent on November 2, 2017. The respondents did not take any step. By letter dated April 20, 2020 as well, a demand was raised. After a lapse of another four years, on June 29, 2024, another demand notice was sent by the petitioner. 4. Learned advocate for the respondents submits....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f limitation applicable. In a similar matter, between the same parties, a coordinate Bench held thus:- "However, such contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted as, on the face of the documents annexed to the application itself, it is seen that petitioner first made its demand in the year 2011, that is, long 13 years back. The commencement of the limitation for a money claim cannot be said to start from the specific date of refusal but is the date when the money becomes due. In the present case, the money claimed by the petitioner became due to the petitioner, even as per the allegations of the petitioner, at least prior to December, 2011 when the claim was first made. Thus, the absence of any clear document to show refusal by the respondents is immaterial. Rather, it is the other way round; the petitioner had to produce at least a single communication from the end of the respondents to indicate that the criteria of Section 18 of the Limitation Act were satisfied. There being no averment in that regard either in the petition or in the demand or notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court is of the opinion that this is a case where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt at the referral stage can interfere only when it is manifest that the claims are ex facie time-barred and dead, or there is no subsisting dispute. All other cases should be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal for decision on merits. Similar would be the position in case of disputed "no-claim certificate" or defence on the plea of novation and "accord and satisfaction". As observed in Premium NaftaProducts Ltd. [Fili Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Premium Nafta Products Ltd., 2007 UKHL 40 : 2007 Bus LR 1719 (HL)], it is not to be expected that commercial men while entering transactions inter se would knowingly create a system which would require that the court should first decide whether the contract should be rectified or avoided or rescinded, as the case may be, and then if the contract is held to be valid, it would require the arbitrator to resolve the issues that have arisen. *** 154. ... 154.4. Rarely as a demurrer the court may interfere at Section 8 or 11 stage when it is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is non-existent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable, though the nature and facet of non-arbitrability would, to some ext....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....49], this Court in a subsequent decision in Nortel Networks [BSNL v. Nortel Networks (India) (P) Ltd., (2021) 5 SCC 738, para 45.1 : (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 352] held : (SCC p. 764, para 45) '45. ... 45.1. ... While exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 as the judicial forum, the Court may exercise the prima facie test to screen and knockdown ex facie meritless, frivolous, and dishonest litigation. Limited jurisdiction of the Courts would ensure expeditious and efficient disposal at the referral stage. At the referral stage, the Court can interfere "only" when it is "manifest" that the claims are ex facie time-barred and dead, or there is no subsisting dispute.' 27. The standard of scrutiny to examine the non-arbitrability of a claim is only prima facie. Referral Courts must not undertake a full review of the contested facts; they must only be confined to a primary first review [Vidya Drolia case, (2021) 2 SCC 1, para 134] and let facts speak for themselves. This also requires the Courts to examine whether the assertion on arbitrability is bona fide or not. [Vidya Drolia case, (2021) 2 SCC 1, para 154.4] The prima facie scrutiny of the facts must lead to a clear con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation? ii. Whether the court may decline to make a reference under Section 11 of Act, 1996 where the claims are ex-facie and hopelessly time-barred? 128. On the first issue, it was observed by us that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the applications filed under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996. Further, we also held that it is the duty of the referral court to examine that the application under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 is not barred by period of limitation as prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, i.e., 3 years from the date when the right to apply accrues in favour of the applicant. To determine as to when the right to apply would accrue, we had observed in paragraph 56 of the said decision that "the limitation period for filing a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 can only commence once a valid notice invoking arbitration has been sent by the applicant to the other party, and there has been a failure or refusal on part of that other party in complying with the requirements mentioned in such notice." 129. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, we are of the opinion that the observations made by us in Arif Azi....