IMPORTANT POINT
Right to file an application u/s 8(2) of the Arbitration Act would accrue on the expiry of 15 days notice requiring other party to concur in appointment of arbitrator; from that date application could be filed within three years.

ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the civil revision filed by the appellant herein. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :

The appellant herein is, a cooperative society. In the year 1969, the appellant decided to set up a sugar factory and for that reason insured the transportation and erection of plant and machinery with New India Assurance Company Limited for any damage that may be caused during transit and erection thereof. The insurance policy contained an arbitration clause for references of disputes arising out of the agreement to an arbitrator. It appears that certain disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent and the appellant took proceedings under the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Registration Act. Ultimately, it was found that the said proceedings were not maintainable. On 27-12-1975, the appellant sent a notice to the respondent to concur with appointment of an arbitrator in view of the differences/disputes having arisen. The respondent declined to concur with the request of the appellant. Under such circumstances, the appellants filed an application under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the District Judge, Morena on 5-4-1976. It appears that on the objection taken by the respondent, the said application of the appellant was rejected on the ground that it was barred by time. The revision filed by the appellant was also rejected. It is in this way, the appellant is in appeal before us.

2. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the application filed by the appellant under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act was barred by limitation. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. To resolve the controversy it is necessary to look into the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the Arbitration Act. The counsel for the parties could not lay their hands on any other provisions of the Limitation Act excepting Article 137 which is extracted below :

Description of suit Period Time from which               of period begins            limitation to run

137. Any other application Three When the right for which no period of years to apply accrues. limitation is provided                      elsewhere in this                       Division."

3. The reading of Article 137 shows that the limitation for filing an application under Section 8 of the Act would begin when the right to make such an application accrues. Section 8 of the Arbitration Act runs as under:

"8. Power of court to appoint arbitrator or umpire.-(1) In any of the following cases -

(a) where an arbitration agreement provides that the reference shall be to one or more arbitrators to be appointed by consent of the parties, and all the parties do not, after differences have arisen, concur in the appointment or appointments; or

(b) - (c)

any party may serve the other parties or the arbitrators, as the case may be, with a written notice to concur in the appointment or appointments or in supplying the vacancy.

(2) If the appointment is not made within fifteen clear days after service of the said notice, the court may, on the application of the party who gave the notice and after giving the other parties an opportunity of being heard, appoint an arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, as the case may be, who shall have like power to act in the reference and to make an award as if he or they had been appointed by consent of all parties."

4. A perusal of Section 8 of the Act would show that if parties do not concur in the appointment of an arbitrator and if one party se