“Section 11 was substantially amended by The Amendment Act of 2015. By virtue of the non obstante clause incorporated in Section 11(6A), Patel Engineering, (2005) 8 SCC 618 and Boghara Polyfab, (2009) 1 SCC 26 were legislatively overruled. The scope of examination is now confined only to the existence of the Arbitration Agreement at the Section 11 stage, and nothing more. All other preliminary or threshold issues are left to be decided by the Arbitrator under Section 16. The issue of limitation would require to be decided by the Arbitrator. Sub-Section (1) of Section 16 provides that the Arbitral Tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction. The issue of limitation is a jurisdictional issue, which would be required to be decided by the Arbitrator under Section 16. In ITW Signode India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (2004) 3 SCC 48 this Court held that the question of limitation involves a question of jurisdiction. Also see, NTPC v. Siemens Atkein Gesell Schaft, (2007) 4 SCC 451 and M/s. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. v. Bhadra Products, (2018) 2 SCC 534.”
– Hon’ble Justice Indu Malhotra, M/s. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited v. Northern Coal Field Limited, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11476 of 2018].