The scope of judicial intervention under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited to the existence of the arbitration agreement; questions of limitation are to be determined by the appointed arbitrator.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute that has arise between the parties in terms of clauses 14 and 25 of the service agreements dated 31.03.2016 and dated 19.09.2016 vide (Annexure-A and B) respectively, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

The petitioner is involved in the business of providing security and related services to its customers. The respondent is engaged in software development and providing consultancy services, including strategic IT and business consulting, systems integration, intellectual property, and etc.

3. In 2016, the respondent approached the petitioner to avail security services as the premises of the respondent at Divyasree Technopolis, 124-125 Yemlur Main Road, Off Airport Road Yemlur, P.O. Bangalore - 560037 and to that effect executed a Service Agreements dated 31.03.2016 (effected from 01.04.2016) and 19.09.2016, in lieu whereof, the consideration, being the payments for the services to be disbursed by the respondent within 30 days after the receipts of the invoices from the petitioner.

4. In view of the services rendered by the petitioner under the service agreement, the petitioner raised several invoices against the respondent, but the respondent failed to clear the outstanding dues. The petitioner approached the respondent and demanded payment of the outstanding dues. The respondent neither disputed the invoices submitted by the petitioner nor paid the outstanding dues. The petitioner issued a demand notice on 01.10.2020 under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to the respondent demanding payment of Rs.1,06,67,430.91/- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Point Nine One Only), including a delay interest @ 18% p.a.

5. The respondent replied to the demand notice vide reply letter dated 10.10.2020 with untenable reasons. The petitioner approached the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru, in view of the default in payment of outstanding bills due and the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2022 on the grounds of the pre-existence of a dispute. The petitioner invoked the Arbitration clauses by issuing an arbitration notice dated 02.02.2024 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996, suggesting the name of an Arbitrator to which an untenable reply was issued by the respondent, rejecting the name of the Arbitrator proposed by the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

6. Respondent filed a statement of objections regarding the execution of the service agreements and contended that the claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondent have entered into service agreements and the petitioner has rendered a service to the respondent. The respondent is liable to pay and outstanding due of Rs.1,06,67,430.91/- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Point Nine One Only). The petitioner, despite issuing the demand notice, the respondent did not pay the outstanding due. There is arbitration clauses in the service agreements dated 31.03.2016 and 19.09.2016. The petitioner invoked the Arbitration clauses by is