Court held that arbitration requests are barred by limitation due to delayed notices, precluding referral for arbitration.

ORDER

The applicant in these arbitration requests is a company engaged in manufacture and supply of drugs/medicines. From 2008 onwards, it has been supplying drugs/medicines to the 1^st respondent, a government company. Disputes projected in these arbitration requests pertain to various agreements executed between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent for supply of drugs and medicines.

2. Dispute in A.R.No.172/2025 pertains to the tender year 2019-20. In A.R.No.173/2025, agreement entered during the tender year 2018-19 is involved. In A.R.No.174/2025, the agreement involved is of the tender year 2017-18. Since the nature of disputes is one and the same in all these arbitration requests, I propose to dispose them by a common order. References made to documents in this order is as per they are indexed in A.R.No.172/2025.

3. The dispute precisely is with regard to the alleged shortage in the payment of the amounts claimed by the petitioners for the supply of medicines and drugs under the respective agreements. It is the case of the petitioners that huge amounts remained unpaid, and the respondents resorted to the levy of liquidated damages, fines, blacklisting, etc.

4. All agreements between the parties contain arbitration clauses. There is no dispute in this regard.

5. The petitioner approached this Court in A.R.No.93/2024 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for resolution of the disputes pertaining to six different contracts between the parties. The respondents objected, contending that each contract is different and therefore a single arbitration request was not maintainable. By order dated 23.6.2025 the arbitration request was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file new distinct applications.

6. Annexure-A4 is a notice issued to the respondents by the petitioner through its counsel on 29.1.2024, calling upon the 1^st respondent to pay various amounts and stating that, in case of non-payment as demanded, the arbitration clause in the agreement would ipso facto stand invoked without any further notice. It was also stated in the notice that it may be read, construed, treated and understood as that stipulated in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996, Sections 1 to 4 of the Interest Act, 1978 and Section 63 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

7. The respondents replied to Annexure-A4 notice by Annexure-A5 dated 12.3.2024. Annexure-A6 is another notice issued on 14.11.2024 by the petitioner through counsel, to the respondents. Contents of the said notice are more or less the same, though the demands were slightly different. Annexure-A7 is a reply issued by the respondents on 21.12.2024 to Annexure-A6 notice. Annexure-A8 is yet another notice issued by the petitioner on 10.3.2025 through the counsel. Annexure-A9 is the reply from the respondents to Annexure-A8.

8. Respondents have filed separate counter affidavits in these arbitration requests. Petitioner has filed reply affidavits refuting the contentions in the counter affidavit.

9. Keeping in mind the restricted scope of adjudication in an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), I do not venture to narrate the facts in further detail. I shall now address the objections raised by the respondents.

10. Respondents raised a primary objection to these arbitration requests. According to the respondents, the claims projected in these arbitration requests are ex-facie time-barred. Therefore, according to them, these arbitration requests are liable to be rejected for that sole reason. The next ground of challenge seriously raised during the course of the arguments was that there was no proper notice as required under Section 21 of the Act and therefore these arbitration requests are premature. The learned