[Arbitration Act] Section 11(6) application barred by limitation if arbitration invoked 32 years after dispute: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is "hopelessly" barred by limitation if the arbitration clause is invoked 32 years after the dispute arose [Vishram Varu and ors. v. Union of India]. .The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was considering an appeal where the dispute arose in the year 1985 but the appellant invoked the arbitration clause 32 years later by sending legal notices. The Court held that the limitation for consideration under Section 11(6) would have commenced in 1985 when the dispute arose and not after the delayed serving of legal notice in 2019."The appellant, who served the legal notice invoking the arbitration clause and requesting for appointment of an arbitrator after a period of approximately thirty-two years, cannot contend that still his application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act be considered as the limitation would start from the date of serving the legal notice and after completion of 30 days from the date of service of the legal notice and invoking arbitration clause," the judgement stated. .The top court passed the judgement on an appeal against a 2021 order of the Calcutta High Court which had dismissed the appellant's application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The appellant had executed work for the respondent in the year 1985. However, in 2018, the appellant sent a representation letter to the respondent for payment for the excess work which was done by him or refer the matter to the arbitration tribunal. Since was no response from the respondent, the appellant sent a legal notice to him in 2019 invoking the arbitration clause and seeking appointment of an arbitrator by the office of the General Manager-respondent.However, an arbitrator was not appointed prompting him to approach the Calcutta High Court under Section 11(6) which dismissed his petition on the ground that "the arbitration petition in 2019 is hopelessly barred by limitation."Subsequently, he approached the Supreme Court with the instant appeal. .On an analysis of the facts of the case, the apex court held that the fact that legal notice was sent only in 2019 cannot be a ground to claim that the cause of action to file the application under Section 11(6) of the Act accrued in 2019."Merely because for the claim/alleged dues of 1985/1986, the legal notice calling upon the respondent to pay the amount due and payable or to refer the dispute to the arbitrator is made after a period of approximately thirty-two years, the appellant cannot be permitted to say that the cause of action to file the application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act had accrued in the year 2018/2019," the Court held..Therefore, it concurred with the order of the Calcutta High Court and dismissed the appeal. "The High Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act on the ground that it is hopelessly barred by limitation and is a stale claim," the judgment stated. .The appellant was represented by Advocate Piyush K Roy. .[Read Judgment]