Summary
Arbitrator-appointment petitions were dismissed because the undisputed chronology showed that arbitration was invoked eleven years after the cause of action arose. Applying the referral-stage principles stated in this order, the Court treated the claims as plainly time-barred. Pending cheque-dishonour proceedings did not create a continuing cause of action for arbitration, since the two proceedings were independent.
Issues
- Whether the uncontested chronology established an ex facie time-barred claim warranting refusal to appoint an arbitrator.
- Whether Section 138 proceedings kept the arbitration cause of action alive.
Provisions considered
- Sections 11(6) and 21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Applying the referral-stage approach stated in this order, the Court declined appointment where the arbitration notices followed accrual of the claim by eleven years on uncontested facts. (¶¶ 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16)
- Article 55, Limitation Act, 1963The contractual claim was outside the three-year period on the undisputed chronology; the Court found no subsisting claim warranting reference. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 15)
Held
- As stated and applied in this order, limitation ordinarily lies with the tribunal, but a Section 11 court may refuse a manifestly dead claim on a limited review of uncontested facts. A contested merits inquiry is not permitted at that stage. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7)
- The claim arose in 2011 after dishonoured cheques and the payment demand. Arbitration was not invoked until 2022, eleven years later and beyond the applicable three-year period. The Court therefore treated the claim as ex facie time-barred and refused appointment. (¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 12)
- Cheque-dishonour prosecution and arbitration are independent proceedings arising from separate causes of action. Pendency of the Section 138 proceedings did not create a continuing arbitration cause of action or cure the limitation problem. (¶¶ 4, 9)
- The companion petition differed only in the date of its memorandum of understanding; the same reasoning applied and it too was dismissed. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
Result
Both arbitration petitions dismissed as concerning ex facie time-barred claims; pending applications disposed of.