The 1996 Act has been framed for expeditious resolution of disputes. Various time lines have been provided [Section 8; Section 9(2); Section 13; Section 16(2); Section 34(3)]. The 1996 Act was amended by The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 to incorporate further provisions for expeditious disposal of Arbitral Proceedings [Section 11(13); Section 29A; Section 34(6) {State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti, (2018) 9 SCC 472}]. Section 11 does not prescribe any time period for filing an application under Sub-Section (6) for appointment of an Arbitrator.

None of the Articles in the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963 provide a time period for filing an application for appointment of an Arbitrator. It would be covered by the residual provision Article 137, which provides a period of 3 years from the date when the right to apply accrues. However, this is an unduly long period. It would be necessary for Parliament to effect an amendment to Section 11, prescribing a specific period of limitation within which a party may move Court for making an application for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of The 1996 Act.

– Hon’ble Justice Indu Malhotra, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. M/s. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd., [Civil Appeal Nos. 843-844 of 2021].

_____

Also see, Secunderabad Cantonment Board v. M/s. B. Ramachandraiah & Sons, [Civil Appeal Nos. 900-902 of 2021] decided on 15.03.2021.

_____

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited has not stated and/or observed and/or held, despite legal notice invoking Arbitration Clause and/or request for referring dispute to Arbitrator is made after 20/30 years, still application under Section 11(6) of The 1996 Act can be entertained. High Court has not committed any error in dismissing the hopelessly barred Section 11(6) application.

– Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah, Vishram Varu v. Union of India, [Civil Appeal No. 2964 of 2022] decided on 21.04.2022.

_____

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. M/s. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 5 SCC 738 assumes importance. Court considered it necessary for Parliament to effect an amendment to Section 11.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, B&T AG v. Ministry of Defence, [Arbitration Petition No. 13 of 2023] decided on 18.05.2023.

_____

“15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was determined to be excluded for computation of limitation.”

There is no doubt as to applicability of The Limitation Act, 1963 to Arbitration Proceedings in general. The limitation period for filing a petition under Section 11(6) or Arbitration Act, 1996 can only commence once a valid notice invoking Arbitration has been sent and there has been a failure or refusal in complying with requirements mentioned in such notice.

We appoint Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Former Judge of Supreme Court of India, as Sole Arbitrator.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, M/s. Arif Azim Co. Ltd. V M/s. Aptech Ltd., [Arbitration Petition No. 29 of 2023] decided on 01.03.2024.

_____

The limitation period governing applications under Section 11(6) of The 1996 Act has recently been explained by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in M/s. Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Aptech Ltd., 2024 INSC 155 which referred to Article 137 of The Limitation Act, 1963 to hold, limitation period for making an application under Section 11(6) is 3 years from the date when the right to apply accrues.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, HPCL Biofuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, [Civil Appeal No. 12233 of 2024] decided on 07.11.2024.