JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J. - Leave granted.

2. The foremost question which falls for determination by this Court is the impact of Section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IBC' for brevity) and whether the aforesaid provision gives rise to a new lease of life to a proceeding at the instance of the corporate debtor on the basis of a moratorium which is put in place by virtue of the order passed under section 14 of the IBC and whether corporate debtor can take advantage of the same to bring the application in this case filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act').

3. Pursuant to an agreement dated 20.02.2015, the appellant placed a purchase order of Rs. 16,20,00,000/- with the respondent.

The appellant, however, issued a termination notice to the respondent on account of its alleged inaction and conduct which is described as non-responsive. This led to the respondent approaching the High Court of Delhi which finally culminated in a direction by the High Court to afford an opportunity of hearing to the respondent and to consider its representation. The appellant, however, rejected the representation by communication dated 17.05.2016. Invoking the provision in the contract providing for arbitration, the respondent addressed communication dated 07.06.2016. The appellant sent its reply on 20.7.2016 where it, inter alia, did not consent for either of the names suggested by the respondent and instead proposed to proceed for arbitration through the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). On 14.5.2018 the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai admitted an application under Section 10 of the IBC and declared the moratorium. On 28.11.2019, a resolution plan was approved by the NCLT. On 25.11.2020, the respondent filed an application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act. By the impugned order dated 14.12.2020, the High Court of Delhi has allowed the application filed under Section 11(6) and appointed a former Chief Justice of a High Court to be the arbitrator. It is apposite at this point itself to notice certain parts of the impugned order in this regard:

"6. Learned counsel are also ad idem that, in view of Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act read with the Seventh Schedule thereto, the arbitral mechanism, contemplated by the afore-extracted Clauses from the Purchase Order and the Agreement, cannot be allowed to operate, as the Chairperson of the NDMC would be disabled from appointing the arbitrator. This position stands crystallized in a number decisions, including the judgments of the Supreme Court in Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd. (2019) 5 SCC 755 and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. IISCC (India) Limited AIR 2020 SC 59, and of this Court in Proddatur Cable TV DIGI Services v. SITI Cable Network Limited MANU/DE/0178/2020.

7. The petitioner wrote to the respondent on 7th June, 2016, suggesting the names of two retired Judges of this Court as the sole arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute.

8. The respondent, however, vide its response, dated 20th July, 2016, suggested that the matter could be referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), for being arbitrated.

9. Today, before me, learned counsel request the Court to appoint an independent arbitrator, who would conduct the arbitration under the aegis of the DIAC, and in accordance with the procedure established in that regard.

10. Learned counsel are also agreeable to pay the fees of the learned sole arbitrator in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the 1996 Act."

It is in view thereto that the appointment of the arbitrator was made.

4. We have heard Shri Gourab Banerjee, learned senior counsel for the appellant, and Shri N. K. Kaul, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent.

Shri Gourab Banerjee, learned senior counsel, would contend that being a plea relating to limitation and since the aspect of limitation pertains to jurisdiction th