Petition U/s. 11(6) A&C Act Not Barred By Limitation If Time Is Spent On Bona Fide Court Proceedings Without Jurisdiction: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has held that a Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not barred by limitation if the time is spent on bona fide Court proceedings without jurisdiction.
The Court appointed an independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties after a Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) was filed by the Petitioner.
A Single Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held, “After getting the suit disposed of under Section 8 of the A&C Act, it does not lie in the mouth of the Respondent to now come to this Court and state that the claim is barred by limitation. The Petitioner had initiated proceedings under the Commercial Courts Act by filing an application under Section 12(a) of the Commercial Court Act on 16.03.2021 and had asked for pre-litigation mediation. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides of exclusion of time spent on bona fide Court proceedings without jurisdiction. The Petitioner had approached the Commercial Court which is the Competent Court to entertain the disputes under the Commercial Court Act.”
Advocate Anuj Kumar Sinha appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Arjun Sawhney represented the Respondent.
The Respondent had issued a work order in favour of the Petitioner herein for a Fire-Fighting system. The Work Order contained an Arbitration Clause. The Petitioner claimed that since the bills were not getting cleared from the end of the Respondent, there was delay in the said project. Later on, the Respondent terminated the contract.
The High Court noted that the Petitioner filed an application under Section 12(A) of the Commercial Court Act for pre-litigation mediation as mandated under the A&C Act for which a Non-Starter Report was prepared.
However, the Respondent filed a reply stating that the claim of the Petitioner was barred by limitation and therefore, no useful purpose would be achieved by referring the parties to arbitration.
“This Court is inclined to refer the dispute to the Arbitration only on the ground that the claim of the Petitioner is not ex facie time barred. It is open for the Arbitrator to apply his mind as to whether the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be extended to the Petitioner herein or not in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
Consequently, the Court observed, “In view of the fact that the Petitioner had availed its remedy under the Commercial Courts Act in the year 2019 itself which was within limitation. The pre-mediation litigation ended as a Non-Starter because of the nonappearance of the Respondent, resulting in filing of a suit by the Petitioner herein and the Suit was rejected as the Respondent herein filed an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act on the ground of existence of an Arbitration clause. This Court is of the opinion that it cannot be said that the claim of the Petitioner is ex facie a dead claim.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: JKR Techno Engineers Pvt Ltd v. JMD Limited (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:8758)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Anuj Kumar Sinha
Respondent: Advocates Arjun Sawhney, Rohan Bhambri and Arnav Gosain