Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 333 - HC - Companies LawSection 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Appointment of arbitrator under clause 8 of the agreement - Claims & Application filed U/s 11 are time barred - Execution MOU - Regarding issue of limitation - Held that:- The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of SBP Vs. Patel Engg. 2005 (8) SCC 618 has held that the proceedings U/s 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is not before the court - In my view as the application U/s 11 is not before the court, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to such application filed U/s 11 - Thus there is no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that application U/s 11 having been filed in the year 2009 is barred by law of limitation. Regarding reliance placed on the MOU - Held that:- Though there was reference to the said alleged MOU dated 14th July, 2003, in the said letter, the respondents unconditionally agreed to resolve all the disputes between the parties by referring the said disputes to arbitration - The respondent had agreed that the arbitrator be appointed from the Indian Council of Arbitration and had requested the applicants to suggest five names - The said letter clearly indicates that even otherwise, the parties have recorded arbitration agreement in terms of section 7(4)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996 - Shri. N.N. Shrikhande is appointed as sole arbitrator -Application is disposed of.
|