1. Factual Background

   • HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd., a government-owned entity, engaged M/S Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad for a turnkey project to enhance biofuel production facilities.
   • Disputes arose over delayed payments and contract performance, leading to arbitration demands and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) proceedings.

2. Initial Legal Proceedings

   • The respondent filed for arbitration but later pursued insolvency proceedings under the IBC. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted the application, but it was later reversed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), citing "pre-existing disputes."

3. Recurrent Arbitration Applications

   • Following the dismissal of insolvency proceedings, the respondent filed a second arbitration request. The High Court granted the request despite HPCL's objections regarding limitation and maintainability.

Legal Issues

1. Maintainability of Second Arbitration Application

   • Whether a second application for arbitration under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was permissible without specific permission after the withdrawal of a prior application.

2. Limitation Concerns

   • Whether the respondent’s second arbitration request was time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

3. Benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act

   • Whether the time spent pursuing the IBC proceedings could be excluded in calculating the limitation period.

Applicable Acts and Sections

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11(6)
• Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Sections 8, 9
• Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Order 23, Rule 1 (analogous application)
• Limitation Act, 1963: Sections 5, 14, and Article 137

Ratio Decidendi:

The Supreme Court ruled that:

• Repeated Arbitration Requests: A second arbitration application may be maintainable, provided no explicit bar exists under the Arbitration Act. The withdrawal of the first application does not automatically preclude a second, especially if the earlier proceedings had not been adjudicated.
• Time Computation under Section 14 of Limitation Act: The period during which the respondent was pursuing insolvency proceedings in good faith under the IBC could be excluded under Section 14. Arbitration and insolvency are separate remedies, yet the time spent in one process may be excluded if pursued bona fide.

Conclusion

The Court upheld the High Court’s decision, allowing arbitration to proceed, holding that Section 14 of the Limitation Act applied and the second application was maintainable despite the earlier withdrawal. This case reaffirms the judiciary’s role in balancing timely dispute resolution with fair procedural flexibility in complex contractual and insolvency disputes.