Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 1966 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1966 (9) TMI 134 - SC - Companies LawWhether The Judicial Commissioner was in error in rejecting the application of the appellants for filing the arbitration agreement as barred under Art. 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908? Held that:- There is no doubt that cl. (1) of s. 37 of the Arbitration Act deals only with the authority of the arbitrator to deal with and decide any dispute referred to him it has no concern with an application made to the Court to file an arbitration agreement and to refer a dispute to the arbitrator. After an agreement is filed in Court and the matter is referred to the arbitrator, it is for the arbitrator to decide by the application of the law contained in the Limitation Act, whether the claim is barred. But s. 37(1) does not confer authority upon the Court to reject the application for filing of an arbitration agreement under s. 20 of the Arbitration Act because the claim is not made within three years form the date on which the right to apply arose. In dealing with an application for 'filing 'an arbitration agreement, the Court must satisfy itself about the existence of a written agreement which is valid and subsisting and which has been executed before the institution of any suit, and also that a dispute has arisen with regard to the subject matter of the agreement which is within the jurisdiction of the Court. But the Court is not concerned in dealing with that application to deal with the question whether the claim of a party to the arbitration agreement is barred by the law of limitation : that question falls within the province of the arbitrator to whom the dispute is referred. The Judicial Commissioner was, in our judgment, in error in rejecting the application of the appellants for filing the arbitration agreement as barred under Art. 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Appeal allowed.
|