Case Law Details
Garg Construction Company Vs State of Haryana (Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Held that an application u/s. 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator, filed beyond three years, is barred by limitation.
Facts-
The applicant entered into an agreement with the respondents on 23.04.2004 for widening and strengthening on Dabwali Kalanwali via Desujodha Road K.M. 0.00 to 35.10 in Sirsa District. The work was to be completed within a period of twelve months, whereas it was completed on 31.05.2007. A dispute arose between the parties on account of the fact that an inquiry by the State Vigilance Bureau was conducted in respect of certain issues and, therefore, payment of the applicant was withheld. The applicant thereafter filed an application seeking appointment of an arbitrator by issuing a legal notice to the respondents on 11.04.2011 pursuant to which the respondents sent a letter dated 28.04.2011 asking the applicant to deposit 10% of the claim amount immediately well before the limitation period so that the arbitrator could be appointed. The communication clearly stated that in case the applicant failed to deposit the claim amount well before the limitation period, it would be responsible for the delay. Thereafter, several correspondences took place between the parties and the respondents continued to reiterate their stand on the deposit of 10% of the claim amount which was admittedly not deposited by the applicant. Ultimately, the applicant filed this application under Section 11 of the Act before this Court on 28.04.2017.
Conclusion-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
There is no time limit stated in sec,11. It depends on the Arbitration Agreement between parties. If there is no time limit stated in Arbitration Agreement, no time limit can be fixed by Court unless the transaction is hit by Limitation Act