HC reiterates limitation for deciding the underlying substantive disputes is necessarily distinct from that of filing an application for appointment of an Arbitrator

  

The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jaideep Singh vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. consisting of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani reiterated that the period of limitation for filing a petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator(s) cannot be confused or conflated with the period of limitation applicable to the substantive claims made in the underlying commercial contract.

Contentions Made

Petitioner: It was contended that the claim against respondent No.3 includes refund of performance security deposit of about Rs. 9 lacs, which was to remain in force upto 60 days after completion of the contract; and which has been withheld by respondent No.3 beyond the said period. It was also contended that the question whether the claims are time-barred was a mixed question of fact and law, which must be left to the Arbitrator to decide.

 

Respondent: It was contended that the petition was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in law and was therefore not maintainable.          

Observations of the Court

The Bench, relying on BSNL v. Nortel Networks (India) (P) Ltd delved into the settled legal position as to reference to arbitration when claims are alleged to be time-barred and reiterated that:

“The period of limitation for filing a petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator(s) cannot be confused or conflated with the period of limitation applicable to the substantive claims made in the underlying commercial contract. The period of limitation for such claims is prescribed under various Articles of the Limitation Act, 1963.”

Relying on Intercontinental Hotels Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd, it did not accept the contention that the present petition was time-barred and that the claims sought to be raised were ex-facie time barred and therefore ‘deadwood’.

Judgment

The Bench opined that that there was a valid and subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties and that this court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present petition. Accordingly, a sole arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate upon the disputes.

Case: Jaideep Singh vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: ARB.P. 1086/2021

Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Decided on: 26^th August 2022

Read Judgment;

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure