The arbitrator can defer the adjudication of the limitation issue until sufficient evidence is available, and such a deferral is within their discretion.

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

1. The present writ petition impugns order dated 22nd August, 2024, passed by the Sole Arbitrator disposing off an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ,1 deferring the issue of limitation to be adjudicated at the time of final disposal of the case.

2. The Petitioner contends that by postponing the adjudication of the limitation issue, the Sole Arbitrator has disregarded the specific direction of this Court as recorded in the order dated 16th February, 2024 in Arb. P. 657/2023, wherein the Arbitrator was mandated to first decide the preliminary issue of limitation before proceeding with the substantive dispute. The Petitioner asserts that limitation being a critical threshold issue ought to have been adjudicated upfront. It is argued that, contrary to the Court’s observations, the impugned order effectively postpones this determination, leaving the issue unresolved until the final disposal, thus, rendering the current proceedings vulnerable to further procedural complications and potential delays. Additionally, the Petitioner emphasizes that limitation is not merely procedural but touches upon the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. If the claims are barred by limitation, the proceedings would be null and void ab initio, and it would serve no purpose to proceed with the arbitration in the absence of a definitive ruling on this point. By failing to decide the issue of limitation as a preliminary matter, the Arbitrator has, according to the Petitioner, acted contrary to established legal principles and in disregard of this Court’s directions. Consequently, the Petitioner seeks intervention from this Court to ensure that the issue of limitation is conclusively decided before the arbitration proceeds any further.

3. On the issue of maintainability, counsel for the Petitioner contends that the present writ petition falls within an exceptional category that necessitates the Court’s intervention. He argues that the bar of limitation is evident from the Respondent’s own pleadings and documents, and therefore, the Arbitrator should not have proceeded without first adjudicating the limitation issue. The failure to address the objection raised under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act at the outset of the proceedings, amounts to a procedural irregularity. Counsel places reliance on this Court’s 1 “the Act”/ “Arbitration and Conciliation Act” ruling in Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited , CA No. 14665/2015, decided on 6th January, 2021 underscoring the necessity of judicial oversight where an arbitrator has deviated from a clearly mandated procedural framework.

4. The Court has duly considered the arguments advanced by the Petitioner but remains unconvinced. It is a well-established principle, reaffirmed by this Court in C.S Construction Company Private Limited v. Excelling Geo , W.P.(C) 10027/2024, decided on 25th July, 2024 and Engineering and Hindustan Alloys Private Limited v. Maa Sheetla Ventures Limited, W.P.(C) 10561/2024, that a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can only be entertained in arbitration matters under rare and exceptional circumstances. In the present case, the impugned order pertains to an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , which empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. If the Tribunal accepts the plea of jurisdiction under Section 16 (2) or 16(3), an appeal is permissible under Section 37 of t