Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Leaf Biotech Pvt. Ltd., filed an Arbitration Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator, along with a Civil Application for condonation of delay of about four months in presenting the petition. The respondent was the Municipal Corporation of the City of Nashik. The dispute arose from an agreement containing an arbitration clause (clause 11) that provided for sole arbitration by the Municipal Commissioner. The petitioner invoked the clause but the Commissioner did not confirm whether he would enter upon the reference. The court first addressed the limitation issue, determining that an application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act is not a suit and therefore falls under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (residuary for applications) rather than Article 113 (residuary for suits). Both Articles prescribe a three-year period, but Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies only to applications under Article 137, allowing condonation of delay. The court found sufficient cause to condone the delay of about four to five months. On merits, since the Municipal Commissioner failed to respond to the invocation of arbitration, the court allowed the petition and appointed an arbitrator. The decision clarifies the applicable limitation provision for Section 11 applications and the availability of Section 5 for delay condonation.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Application under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Article 137 vs Article 113 - The court held that an application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act is not a suit and falls under the Third Division of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which deals with 'Applications'. Since no specific period is prescribed, it is governed by Article 137 (residuary for applications) and not Article 113 (residuary for suits). Both Articles prescribe three years, but Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies only to applications under Article 137, not to suits under Article 113. (Paras 2-5) B) Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Delay Condonation - The court found adequate reasons to condone a delay of about four to five months in filing the petition under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, as the Municipal Commissioner did not respond to the petitioner's invocation of the arbitration clause. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the period of limitation for an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is governed by Article 137 or Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked for condonation of delay.
Final Decision
The court allowed the civil application for condonation of delay and allowed the arbitration petition, appointing an arbitrator.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Article 137 applies to applications under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 5 of Limitation Act applicable to such applications
- Article 113 applies only to suits
