In arbitration matters, limitation issues should generally be evaluated by the Arbitrator unless claims are clearly time barred.

O R D E R

The applicant is a Lawyer by profession. The respondent, a non-banking finance company availed services of the applicant as an Auctioneer in 2014. He continued to provide services till March 2024 and series of agreements were executed between the parties. The last agreement executed on 17.03.2022 is produced as Annexure A1.

2. According to the applicant, an amount of Rs.91,705/- was remaining to be paid to him by the respondent. The applicant raised a bill on 22.02.2022. As there was no response, a letter was sent on 28.03.2023 demanding payment. The said letter also did not invoke any response. On 18.06.2024, a notice was issued. Copy of the notice dated 18.06.2024 has been produced as Annexure A4.

3. Invoking the arbitration clause in the agreement, Annexure A5 notice was issued suggesting a lawyer as the Arbitrator. However, the respondent did not reply to Annexure A5. Hence the arbitration request was filed.

4. Respondent entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. It is contended in the counter affidavit that the claims are time barred. According to the respondent, the applicant has claimed amounts for the period between 01.05.2021 and 31.12.2021. It is pointed out that the arbitration request was filed only on 14.03.2025 and therefore the arbitration request is liable to be rejected since the claims are ex facie time barred.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that notice as contemplated under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was issued on 18.06.2024 and it was duly served on the respondent. He submitted that the arbitral proceedings commenced with the receipt of notice by the respondent and hence the claims are not time barred. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent disputed the contentions and submitted that the chronology pointed out in the counter affidavit would clearly establish that the claims are time barred. It is trite law that the contentions regarding arbitrability and limitation are matters to be decided by the Arbitrator. Only if the claims are ex facie time barred, the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act can reject the arbitration request.

8. In the instant case, it appears that the contention regarding the limitation is a dispute which can be analysed only on the basis of evidence and on examination of relevant materials. Therefore the arbitration request cannot be rejected holding that the claims are ex facie time barred. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the view that the said contention can be left to be decided by the Arbitrator.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent raised a further contention that no proper request was made by the applicant invoking the arbitration clause. A perusal of Annexure A5 shows that the applicant has mentioned the disputed amount and other details in it. Annexure A5 also contains the details of the dispute. Therefore I do not find any merits in the said contention of the learned counsel for the respondent.

10. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this arbitration request can be allowed. Hence the following directions are issued:

1. The Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre is directed to nominate an Arbitrator from Panel-V, preferably from Thrissur, 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 co