( 1 ) THE contention of U. O. I, is that when the supplies were lastly made in August, 1955, the claim had already become barred by limitation when notice for referring the disputes for arbitration was given. Reference in this connection may be made to S. 37 (3) of the Act which says that for the purposes of S. 37 and of Limitation Act, an arbitration shall be deemed to be commenced when one party to the arbitration agreement serves on the other parties thereto, a notice requiring the appointment of an arbitrator. The respondent, however, contends that cause of action would arise only on 17. 1. 1968 when U. O. I, finally rejected the claim for increase in price. Mr. Gupta said his claim was outside the contract for supply of hosiery goods. If that be so, how could the disputes be subject matter of arbitration, is not clear to me. But, then this is not the objection by the UOI. Mr. Gupta strongly relied on Cannon Dunkerly Co. vs. U. O. I. AIR 1970 SC 1433. In this case a contract was executed on 26. 11. 1948 for construction of certain works at Sindri Fertilizer Factory to be completed by 26. 2. 1950. The appellant company made certain demands by letter dt. 20. 9. 1950 w