The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to arbitration proceedings, allowing for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, within three years from the right to apply accruing.

ORDER :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to decide the dispute that has arisen between the parties under the Dealership Agreement dated 25.02.2015.

2. When this petition came up for hearing on 10.12.2025, this Court passed the following order:

This petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute arising out of the Dealership Agreement dated 25.02.2015.

2. The agreement provides for referring the dispute for Arbitration under clause 66 and the same is extracted hereunder:-

66. ANY DISPUTE OR DIFFERENCE OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER OR REGARDING ANY RIGHT, LIABILITY, ACT, OMISSION OR AGCOUNT OF ANY OF THE PARTIES HERETO ARISING OUT OF OR IN RELATION TO THIS AGREEMENT (OTHER THAN THOSE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE DECISION OF ANY PERSON, IS BY THE AGREEMENT, EXPRESSED TO BE FINAL AND BINDING) SHALL BE REFERRED TO THE SOLE ARBITRATION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION OR SOME OFFICER OR RETIRED OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION OR RETIRED OFFICER OF OTHER OIL PS PSUS OR RETIRED SENIOR CENTRAL GOVT. OFFICER WHO MAY BE NOMINATED BY THE CHAIRMANAND MANAGING DIRECTOR. THE DEALER WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO ANY SUCH ARBITRATOR ON THE GROUND THAT THE ARBITRATOR IS OR WAS AN OFFICER AND/OR SHARE HOLDER OF THE CORPORATION OR THAT HE HAS TO DEAL WITH OR DEALT WITH THE MATTERS TO WHICH THE CONTRACT RELATES OR THAT IN THE COURSE OF HIS DUTIES AS AN OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION HE HAD EXPRESSED VIEWS ON ALL OR ANY OF THE MATTERS IN DISPUTE OR DIFFERENCE. IN THE EVENT OF THE ARBITRATOR TO WHOM THE MATTER IS ORIGINALLY REFERRED VACATING HIS OFFICE OR BEING UNABLE TO ACT FOR ANY REASON, THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AS AFORESAID AT THE TIME OF SUCH VACATION OF OFFICE OR INABILITY TO ACT, SHALL DESIGNATE ANOTHER PERSON TO ACT AS ARBITRATOR. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT SUCH PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO PROCEED WITH THE REFERENCE FROM THE POINT AT WHICH IT WAS LEFT BY HIS PREDECESSOR. IT IS ALSO A TERM OF THIS CONTRACT THAT NO PERSON OTHER THAN THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OR A PERSON NOMINATED BY SỨCH CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION AS AFORESAID SHALL ACT AS ARBITRATOR HEREUNDER. THE COST OF ARBITRATION SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY BY THE PARTIES.

3. The trigger notice under Section 21 of the Act was issued on 06.03.2025 and the same has also been received by the respondent. Since there was no response, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

4. Notice to the respondent returnable by 19.01.2026. Private notice is also permitted.

5. Post this case for hearing on 19.01.2026.

3.After the service of notice, the respondents have filed counter affidavit. The respondents have taken a stand that the Dealership Agreement dated 25.02.2015 was valid only for a period of ten years and this period has already come to an end by efflux of time. The respondents have also raised the issue of limitation on the ground that the Dealership Agreement was terminated on 10.06.2021 and whereas, this petition has been filed only in the year 2025. Hence, the respondents have sought for the dismissal of this petition on the ground of all delay and laches. The respondents have also taken a stand that the grievance of the petitioner revolves around the restoration of the dealership and for the continuance of the same and that this relief itself cannot be granted, since the Agreement has already come to an end by efflux of time. On all these grounds, the respondents have sought for the dismissal of this petition.

4.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials available on record.

5.In the case in hand, the Dealership Agreement was terminated on 10.06.2021 and hence, the learned counsel fo