The court may permit fresh arbitration proceedings unless claims are manifestly time-barred.

JUDGMENT

Applicant is a non-banking finance company. The respondents entered into a hire purchase agreement on 13.03.2013 with the applicant company to take on hire an excavator. It was agreed that an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) and finance charges of Rs.1,68,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand only) would be repaid in 24 monthly installments. According to the applicant the respondents defaulted repayment of the amounts. On 25.10.2016, the applicant issued a notice invoking the arbitration clause in Annexure A1 agreement. Thereafter, arbitration proceedings were initiated. An award was passed on 12.10.2017. The applicant approached the District Court, Thrissur in E.P.No.1145 of 2022 for executing the award. However, the execution court dismissed the E.P by order dated 10.11.2023 for the reason that the appointment of the Arbitrator was unilateral. It was found that the award was not enforceable as the appointment of the Arbitrator was illegal. Thereafter, the applicant issued Annexure A5 notice on 04.06.2025 to initiate fresh arbitral proceedings. On 30.06.2025, the respondents issued Annexure A6 notice stating that they are not agreeable for arbitration by the Arbitrator suggested by the applicant. Thereafter, this arbitration request was filed.

2. Notice was issued and the respondents have entered appearance through the learned Counsel. Counter affidavit has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that a fresh arbitral proceeding is not barred under law and the applicant issued a fresh notice after dismissal of the E.P and hence conditions for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act have been fulfilled. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that claims of the applicant have become time barred and this arbitration request is liable to be rejected for that reason. He also pointed out that the execution petition was dismissed in the year 2023 and the applicant chose to initiate fresh arbitral proceedings much later and approached this Court only in November 2025.

3. It is trite that arbitrability of the dispute as well as question of limitation are matters to be considered by the Arbitrator. Only if the claim is ex facie time barred an arbitration request can be rejected. If analysis of factual aspects is required to decide as to whether the claims are time barred for not, then the issue shall be left to the Arbitrator.

4. On hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for the respondents and perusal of the pleadings and documents, I am of the view that, there is a valid arbitration clause in Annexure A1 agreement and the applicant issued a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to initiate fresh arbitral proceedings. I am satisfied that this arbitration request can be therefore allowed leaving it open to the respondents to raise all available contentions regarding arbitrability and limitation before the learned Arbitrator.

Hence the arbitration request is disposed with the following directions:-

1. The Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre is directed to nominate an Arbitrator from Panel-V, preferably from Ernakulam, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents under Annexure A1 Agreement.

2. The learned Arbitrator may entertain all issues between the parties in connection with the said Agreements, including questions of jurisdiction and limitation, if any, raised by the parties. All contentions of the parties are left open and they are at liberty to raise their claims and countercl