RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
PRASAR BHARTI – Appellant
Versus
MAA COMMUNCATION – Respondent
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. These applications under Section 11 (6)(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, though entertainable by the Chief Justice or his designate, were vide order dated 4th September, 2009 referred to this Bench, to consider the aspect of limitation within which an application under Section 11(6) can be filed. The counsels for the respondents had relied upon the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court in Sh. Rajesh Kumar Garg v. MCD 149 (2008) DLT 343 to contend that the limitation of three years commences from the date on which, had there been no arbitration clause, the cause of action would have accrued. It was felt that the matter was required to be considered by a larger bench.
2. The counsels for the respondents during the hearing also relied on Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. J.C. Budharaja AIR 1999 SC 3275; therein, relying on Panchu Gopal Bose v. Board of Trustees for Port of Calcutta (1993) 4 SC 338, it was held that the period of limitation for commencement of an arbitration runs from the date on which the cause of arbitration accrued, that is to say from the date when the claimant first acquired either a right of action or a right to requ
5. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd.
6. Northern Railway Administration v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd.
9. Shah Construction Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
10. Utkal Commercial Corporation v. Central Coal Fields Ltd.
2. J.C. Budhraja v. Chairman, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.