SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Del) 137

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
PRASAR BHARTI – Appellant
Versus
MAA COMMUNCATION – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate:Mr. Shyam Moorjani with Ms. Anuradha Anand, Advocates
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate

JUDGMENT

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












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top