The limitation period for an application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act commences from the date of accrual of the right to apply, which is the date of rescission of the contract.

( 1 ). THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge by which, he has held that the application filed by the respondent u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act (the Act) was filed within time and directed the appointment of the arbitrators in accordance with the conditions of the contract.

( 2 ) ON 8. 6. 73 a contract was entered into between the respondent and the Union of India for construction of 48 units of types staff quarters at Moradabad. The contract was to be completed by 8. 6. 74. This date was, however, extended to 512. 74. Apparently, the work was not completed and the appellant, therefore, rescinded the contract on 6. 12. 74, The respondent sent a notice, dated 17. 10. 76 to the General Manager, Northern Railways, requiring that as per the agreement, he was to Act as the sole arbitrator and informing him that he may appoint some one else as an arbitrator, within the prescribed period of 15 days from the receipt of the letter and that if no such arbitrator was appointed within the said statutory period, the respondent will proceed u/s 20 of the Act or any other provision as might be open. A reminder was also sent to the appellant who by his letter of 24. 8. 77 stated that the matter was receiving active consideration and nal reply will be sent as early as possible. No further communication was received from the appellant. The respondent thereafter moved an application on 8 9. 78 u/s 20 of the Act for filing the arbitration agreement and referring the matter to arbitration.

( 3 ) THE appellant pleaded bar of limitation The learned Single Judge has held it against the appellant and has held the application to be within time.

( 4 ) THE appellant need not have filed the appeal, but as explained by Mr. Jaitley, counsel for the appellant, a number of matters have been decided on this point, the department wants the matter to be finally decided by this Court because the learned Single Judge of this Court have taken contrary views on this aspect of the matter.

( 5 ) SECTION 37 (1) of the Arbitraton Act provides that all the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to arbitrations as they apply to proceedings in Court. There is no specific Article in the Limitation Act, 1963, laying down for filing an application u/s 20 of the Act There is, however, a residuary Art. 137 which lays down a period of limitation of three years and the time from which the period begins to run is when the right to apply accrues (emphasis supplied ). At one time under Limitation Act, 1908 there was a view that the residuary Art. 137 does not apply to the proceedings under Arbitration Act. That position is no longer correct law in view of Kerala State Electricity Board v. T. P. Kunhaliuma, AIR. 1977 S. C 282 which lays down that the interpretation which was given to Article 181 Limitation Act, 1908 on the principle of ejusdem generis is not applicable with regard to Art. 137 of Limitation Act, 1963. It was held that Art. 137 will apply to any petition or any application filed under any Act to a civil court. As there is no specific provision under the Limitation Act for an application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act it is apparent that the time for filing an application is governed by Art. 137 of the Limitation Act. This position is, indeed, not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Kumar though a half hearted efforts was made by Mr. Daljit Singh appearing in connected matter to urge that notwithstanding the decision in the Kerala State Elec. Bd. , an application u/s 20 of the Act was not governed by the Limitation Act and there was no limitation period, as according to the counsel Section 20 is merely a procedural section. The argument is unacceptable. In view of the Supreme Court decision, it is no longer open to urge that the applications under the Arbitration Act which are filed in civil court are not governed by the Limitation Act To be fair to Mr. Kumar, who argued the main matter, we may note that he did n