The Limitation Act applies to arbitration petitions, making claims subject to a three-year limit; timely notice invoking arbitration extends validity to claims, preventing time-bar dismissal.

JUDGMENT

J. B. PARDIWALA, J.:

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: -

INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX .................................................................................... 2

B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER ........................ 15

C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ...................... 18

D. ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 21

i. ISSUE NO. 1: Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ? If yes, whether the present

1 R4 e: a2 s6 o:3 n0 : IST petition is barred by limitation? ............................................................. 22

a. When does the right to apply under Section 11 (6) accrue? .............. 27

ii. ISSUE NO. 2: Whether the court may refuse to make a reference under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the claims are ex-facie and hopelessly time-barred? .................................. 36

a. Jurisdiction versus Admissibility ...................................................... 37

b. When does the Cause of Action arise? ............................................. 47

c. When is Arbitration deemed to have commenced? .......................... 54

E. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 56

1. This is a petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act, 1996”) filed at the instance of a company based in Kabul, Afghanistan and engaged in the business of providing training to desirous students in computer education, English language, information technology, etc. praying for the appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes and claims arising from the Contract dated 21.03.2013 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. A. FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner, M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd., is a company based in Afghanistan, having its registered office at 1^st Floor, Zarnigar Hotel, Mohammed Jan Khan Watt, Kabul, Afghanistan and is engaged in the business of providing training in computer education, information technology, English language, etc.

3. The respondent, M/s Aptech Limited, is a company having its registered office at Aptech House, A-65, MIDC Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400093, Maharashtra, India and is engaged in the business of providing training and education in information technology through its network in India and abroad.

4. On 21.03.2013, three separate franchise agreements were entered into between petitioner/franchisee and the respondent/franchisor. As per the terms of the said agreements, the petitioner, as the franchisee, was granted a non-exclusive license, by the respondent to establish and operate businesses under the following trade names:

I. Aptech English Language Academy (for short, “AELA”)

II. Aptech Computer Education (for short, “ACE”)

III. Aptech Hardware and Networking Academy (for short, “AHNA”)

5. The dispute in the present case pertains to the agreement entered into between the parties for the AELA. A perusal of the recitals of the said agreement reveals that the respondent company has the expertise in imparting training in information technology and had developed content and established programs for training in computer-based information. The programs developed by the respondent under the brand name AELA included the recurring use of trade names, trademarks, advertising and publicity, distinctive style and character of premises and furnishings, support and placement program for students, etc. The petitioner, desirous of establishing a centre for providing training in information technology in the courses conducted by the respondent with a view to train and educate students to enable them to appear and qualify in the said courses, had approached the respondent as