TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner vide its notice dated 04.01.2017. The claim in money is the only claim that was raised in invocation notice dated 28.07.2021; and the argument that the petitioner was also entitled to get back the hardware and other equipments lying with the respondents, is to be considered only to be rejected, since reply dated 31.08.2021 issued by the respondents records that such hardware was picked-up by the petitioner, which the petitioner does not dispute. Even more importantly, the law is clear that an invocation notice must set-out clearly the claims that a party wants referred to arbitration; and in the present case, no claim for recovery of hardware was at all contained in invocation notice dated 28.07.2021. The period of limitation applicable to the petitioner's claim is as follows: having terminated the contract with the respondents vide notice dated 04.01.2017, and the respondents having failed to pay the amounts claimed to be due, the petitioner ought to have issued the notice invoking arbitration within 03 years of that date, viz. by or before 03.01.2020. However, the petitioner issued the notice invoking arbitration only on 28.07.2021, which was evidently beyo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference of disputes to arbitration is that the claims made by the petitioner, of which reference is sought, are ex-facie time-barred. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the disputes between the parties have arisen from Agreements dated 02.05.2014, 31.03.2015, 30.05.2015 and 06.06.2016, all of which related to the setting-up of Smart Learn Classes at the respondents' schools, as referred to above. 7. All else apart, learned counsel appearing for the respondents points-out that, on their own admission, the petitioner invoked arbitration vide notice dated 28.07.2021 issued to the respondents, in which notice the petitioner itself set-out the following claims and also indicated the time when the said claims became due: 5. However, once Our Client had delivered the hardware and installed the SLC's you started delaying payment instalments. Further, You the Noticees again misrepresented and gave false assurances that the said delay (sic) Therefore, the outstanding amount pending to be recovered from you the Noticees by our Client is Rs. 29,28,100 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred Only) Alongwith Interest @ 18% P.A. till the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edule of payments for the respondents to pay for the hardware extended upto May 2018; and furthermore, that in para 11 of reply dated 31.08.2021 issued by the respondents, they have admitted that the hardware in question was lying in the premises of the respondents until 2019 in the following words: 11. My clients states that your client representatives unlawfully entered into my clients school premises in the year 2019 and took all the Hardwar (sic) and Multimedia accessories from my client school without the permission and consent of my clients. The act of your client's representatives would put my clients into great mental depression and worries and it will spoil the reputation of my clients school. Your clients had not acted upon the agreements entered into between your client and my clients. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the 03-year limitation period prescribed in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to urge that since the petitioner's money claims against the respondents are founded inter-alia on the recovery of hardware from the respondents, the claims sought to be referred are within limitation. 11. In support of its submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finislitium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. (emphasis supplied) 14. What is evident from a conspectus of the foregoing, is that the petitioner's claim against the respondents as raised in invocation notice dated 28.07.2021 is only one: viz. for payment of arrears of licence fee/other dues amounting to Rs. 29,28,100/-, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22 made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 03/2020 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct that running of limitation would be held in abeyance for the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 since the limitation in respect of the petitioner's claim ran-out on 03.01.2020 i.e. before the date of which the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order takes effect. 19. For completeness, the two other objections raised on behalf of the petitioner may also be answered. The petitioner's objection that the schedule of payments, as set-out in Annexure 3 to Agreement dated 31.03.2015, ran up-to May 2018 is of no relevance of consequence, for the reason that admittedly the petitioner terminated the contract with the respondent by Notice dated 04.01.2017; and could not therefore have demanded payment up-to May 2018 in the same breath. The petitioner's other objection, that since in its reply dated 31.08.2021 the respondent themselves were willing to accept and had given their consent for appointment of an arbitrator near to the locality where the respondents were located, is neither here nor there, since if the court finds that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
