A petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is barred by limitation if not filed within three years from the accrual of cause of action without sufficient explanation for delay.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

I.A.Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2024

1. Heard Shri Agendra Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. At the outset, it may be noticed that the instant petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act of 1996 (hereinafter referred to Act of 1996) was dismissed for want of prosecution by means of order dated 26.09.2023.

3. The petitioner has moved an application for recall of the said order alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay. While the said application was pending the petitioner has moved another application for substitution informing that the sole petitioner Bhookan Saran expired and his legal heirs are to be brought on record.

4. The Court has considered the application for recall as well as the application seeking condonation of delay in doing so and finds that the cause shown is sufficient. Accordingly the application for recall as well as the application seeking condonation of delay are allowed. The order dated 26.09.2023 is recalled. The petition stands restored after codonation of delay.

5. The Court has thereafter considered the application for substitution alongwith the application seeking condonation for delay and the ground shown therein is found sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay and substitution are allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant shall carry out the necessary amendment and file an amended memo of the parties with the office of the Court in e-format within a week. It is also made clear that the office shall ensure carrying out the amendment before issuing the certified copy of this order.

On merits

6. Shri Agendra Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the parties had entered in a dealership agreement dated 09.01.1991. The said agreement in clause 68 contained a dispute resolution mechanism. It was provided that in case of any dispute between the parties, the same shall be referred to the Sole Arbitration of Managing Director of the Corporation or some other officer of the Corporation, who may be nominated by the Managing Director to Act as the Sole Arbitrator.

7. In the aforesaid backdrop, it was stated that the petitioner was running his dealership under the name and style of M/s Kumar Filling Station. Certain disputed accrued between the parties arising out of the said agreement. As a consequence, the respondent issued a show cause to the petitioner dated 13.07.2010. The petitioner furnished his reply to the said show cause on 07.10.2010 wherein all the allegations made against the petitioner were disputed.

8. The respondent considering the reply of the petitioner issued a termination letter dated 09.05.2011 citing infringement of clauses 9, 44, 46, 47(ii) and 58 of the dealership agreement.

9. The petitioner being aggrieved against the unilateral termination of the dealership invoked the arbitration clause. In reply to the same, the respondent issued a letter dated 31.10.2011 proposing the name of a retired officer of HPCL as the Arbitrator and requested the petitioner to give is consent.

10. It appears to be the watershed moment in the litigation as the petitioner states that he did not give his consent in response to the letter issued by the respondent dated 31.10.2011 on the ground that his wife Hosiyari Devi fell seriously ill and on account of her illness the petitioner could not peruse the matter. Later his wife expired on account of prolonged illness and thereafter the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent on