Back
SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
State of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
B. B. M. Enterprises – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issue of notice and initiation of arbitration (Para 1) |
| 2. reliance on precedents by both parties (Para 2) |
| 3. limitation issues in arbitration claims (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. application of limitation act to arbitration (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. contractor's duty to initiate claims (Para 7) |
| 6. order to set aside arbitration (Para 8) |
| 7. disposal of pending applications (Para 9) |
ORDER :
2. Sri Kunal Chatterji, learned counsel appearing for the State, the appellant, would rely on Vishram Varu and Company v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 588. While Sri Sudhanshu Choudhari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent relied on Arif Azim Company Limited v. Aptech Limited, (2024) 5 SCC 313 and Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. ASAP Fluids Private Limited and Another, (2025) 1 SCC 502.
4. Arif Azim Company Limited3 considered both the question of limitation with respect to the claim for recovery of money and the limitation provided for filing an application under Section 11(6). It was categorically found after referring to a host of precedents of this Court that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to arbitration proceedings in general and Article 137 of that Act applies to a petition under Se
A notice seeking arbitration issued 22 years after the completion of work is time-barred, underscoring the need for timely claims in arbitration proceedings.
The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to arbitration claims; an application for an arbitrator appointment must be made within three years from when the right to apply accrues, otherwise, it is time-barred....
Claims for arbitration must be raised promptly upon accrual of rights; failure to do so results in dismissal due to limitation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings and the significance of acknowledging claims to extend the period of limitat....
Arbitrator cannot be appointed on a stale claim.
The arbitration application under Section 11(6) was not barred by limitation as it was filed within three years from the date of notice invoking arbitration, factoring delays linked to the Covid-19 e....
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act requires strict adherence to limitation periods for the appointment of arbitrators; delays exceeding three years render petitions ex-facie time-barred.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the limitation period for filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, as clarified by the Supreme Court....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
