{ "metadata": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The applicants allege delays, substandard construction, and lack of occupancy certification, contending that they are entitled to invoke arbitration despite the time elapsed. The respondents maintain that they met all contractual obligations, that the applicants took possession without objection for several years, and that the claim is time-barred as the right to invoke arbitration accrued long ago.", "bench": [ "The Hon\u0027ble Mr. Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy" ], "case_number": [ "AA No. 169 of 2022" ], "cases_referred": [ "Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another vs Nortel Networks (India) Private Limited [(2021) 5 SCC 738]", "S.S. Rathore vs State of M.P. [(1989) 4 SCC 582 : 1990 SCC (L\u0026S) 50]", "Union of India vs Har Dayal [(2010) 1 SCC 394]", "CLP (India) (P) Ltd. vs Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. [(2020) 5 SCC 185]", "Nortel Networks (India) (P) Ltd. vs BSNL [2020 SCC OnLine Ker 18662]", "BSNL vs Nortel Networks (India) (P) Ltd. [2021 SCC OnLine Ker 2375]" ], "chunkwise_data": { "chunk_1": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The applicants allege incomplete and substandard construction, lack of occupancy certification, and breach of agreed specifications, prompting the request for arbitration. The respondents contend they fulfilled all contractual obligations, argue that several years have passed without complaint, and assert the claim is time-barred.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "The applicants and the respondents entered into two registered Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney on 07.12.2012 for construction on the applicants\u2019 properties in Secunderabad. The applicants assert that the respondents delayed the project, used substandard materials, and did not secure an occupancy certificate. They issued notice to invoke arbitration following the alleged lapses. The respondents claim they completed construction and handed over portions in 2015, and contend that any claim is now time-barred. The applicants then approached this Court under Section 11(5) \u0026 (6) of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator.", "final_status": "No final status is indicated in the provided text.", "formatted_summary": "This section of the document concerns an arbitration application arising from two development agreements in Secunderabad. The applicants allege delays, substandard construction, and absence of occupancy certification by the respondents, who maintain that the project was completed years ago with no objections until now. The applicants seek the court\u2019s intervention to appoint an arbitrator, while the respondents argue the claim is time-barred.", "held": "No final decision is provided in the provided text.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the arbitration clause remains valid and enforceable, whether the claim is time-barred, and whether the alleged construction deficiencies and delays warrant arbitration.", "prayer": "This application, under Section 11(5) \u0026 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short \u201cthe Act\u201d) read with Para (3)(i)(d) of Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, is filed by the applicants seeking to appoint sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the differences and disputes between the applicants and the respondent.", "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996": "ORDER : This application, under Section 11(5) \u0026 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short \u201cthe Act\u201d) read with Para (3)(i)(d) of Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, is filed by the applicants seeking to appoint sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the differences and disputes between the applicants and the respondent.", "Limitation Act, 1963": "4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein inter alia it is stated that the respondents after entering into Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney with applicants on 07.12.2012, completed the construction in all respects in the year 2014-2015 by providing all amenities and facilities as per the agreed specifications of the development agreements which includes providing of two lifts, water connection, standby generator etc., It is further stated that as per the development agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, 50% of the construction portion was already handed over to the applicants during the year 2015 in the form of shops and residential units and the applicants have not raised any objection whatsoever till date and seven (7) years passed by peacefully. It is further stated that under Section 137 of Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation prescribed for filing an application is three years from the date when the right accrues and in the present application, the applicants were silent for seven years after occupying and peacefully enjoying all the amenities provided by the respondents and now they have come up with the present application alleging deficiency of service contrary to the terms of Development-cum-General Power of Attorney and therefore, the present application for appointment of arbitrator is belated and time barred and the claim has become stale.", "Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996": "ORDER : This application, under Section 11(5) \u0026 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short \u201cthe Act\u201d) read with Para (3)(i)(d) of Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, is filed by the applicants seeking to appoint sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the differences and disputes between the applicants and the respondent." } }, "chunk_2": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The applicants maintain that they have valid grievances regarding the construction and seek arbitration despite the passage of time. The respondents counter that the application is untimely, underscoring that the applicants\u2019 delay disqualifies them from pursuing arbitration.", "cases_referred": [ "Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another vs Nortel Networks (India) Private Limited [(2021) 5 SCC 738]", "S.S. Rathore vs State of M.P. [(1989) 4 SCC 582 : 1990 SCC (L\u0026S) 50]", "Union of India vs Har Dayal [(2010) 1 SCC 394]", "CLP (India) (P) Ltd. vs Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. [(2020) 5 SCC 185]", "Nortel Networks (India) (P) Ltd. vs BSNL [2020 SCC OnLine Ker 18662]", "BSNL vs Nortel Networks (India) (P) Ltd. [2021 SCC OnLine Ker 2375]" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "The applicants and respondents executed development agreements on 07.12.2012 for constructing certain properties. The respondents assert that they completed the construction in 2014-2015, and the applicants took possession. Several years later, in 2022, the applicants sent a legal notice alleging deficiencies in construction work and sought to invoke arbitration. The respondents refused, citing the delay as time-barred. Consequently, the applicants filed the present arbitration application for appointment of an arbitrator, contending that their claims warrant resolution through arbitration.", "final_status": "Not provided in the excerpt", "formatted_summary": "The parties entered into development agreements for construction of buildings. The respondents claim completion years ago, asserting that the applicants\u2019 current request for arbitration is too late. The applicants, however, allege construction deficiencies and only recently sought arbitration. The respondents argue the claims are time-barred, and the excerpt references case law on limitation periods for arbitration applications.", "held": "Not provided in the excerpt", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the dispute is barred by limitation due to the lengthy interval between completion of construction and invocation of arbitration, and whether the arbitration clause remains enforceable after the period alleged by the respondents to have lapsed.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996": "In the instant case, the applicants entered into Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney with the respondents on 07.12.2012 for construction of Schedule A and B properties and according to the respondents, they have completed the construction during 2014-2015. After a period of over 7 years, the applicants vide legal notice dated 19.05.2022 invoked the arbitration clause, and requested for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The respondents vide reply notice dated 19.06.2022 refused to resolve the dispute through Arbitration as the issue involved is time barred and not maintainable. Therefore, the applicants filed the present Arbitration Application under Section 11(5) \u0026 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the file of this Court.", "Limitation Act, 1963": "It is further stated that under Section 137 of Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation prescribed for filing an application is three years from the date when the right accrues and in the present application, the applicants were silent for seven years after occupying and peacefully enjoying all the amenities provided by the respondents and now they have come up with the present application alleging deficiency of service contrary to the terms of Development-cum-General Power of Attorney and therefore, the present application for appointment of arbitrator is belated and time barred and the claim has become stale." } }, "chunk_3": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The applicants asserted that the cause of action arose when they issued the legal notice in 2022, while the respondents noted that the agreement\u0027s deadline expired years earlier, rendering the claim outside the permissible time.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": "08.01.2024", "facts": "The applicants entered into a Development Agreement with the respondents, under which construction had to be completed within eighteen months (twelve months plus six months grace). The applicants claim there were deficiencies in the construction but did not invoke the arbitration clause for many years after taking possession. Eventually, they issued a legal notice in 2022. By the time the arbitration application was filed, more than seven years had passed, and lower courts had not ruled on the matter prior to this application.", "final_status": "dismissed", "formatted_summary": "In this section, the Court addresses whether the arbitration application is time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Despite the applicants\u2019 claims of repeated requests for rectification, the agreement\u2019s completion period ended long ago, and the Court concludes that the notice invoking arbitration was filed too late. Consequently, the application is dismissed.", "held": "The court dismissed the arbitration application as time-barred, emphasizing that the applicants failed to invoke the arbitration clause within the statutory three-year period.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the arbitration application is time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996": "9. It is settled law that mere negotiations will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation. Since there is no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 specifying the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11, one would have to take recourse to the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that the Limitation Act shall apply to arbitrators, as it applies to proceedings in Court. Since none of the Articles in Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provide a time period for filing an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11, it would be covered by the residual provision under Article 137 of the Limitation Act which provides that the period of limitation is three years for any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the division. The time limit starts from the period when the right to apply accrues. In the instant case, the applicants except stating that they have repeatedly requested the respondents to make good the loss and pointing out the deficiencies in the construction, have not raised any dispute to resolve the disputes by the Arbitrator. As per the Development Agreement, construction has to be completed within twelve months and the grace period was allowed for a further period of six months. Thus the total time granted in the development agreement for completion of work is 18 months from the date of entering into the Development Agreement. If the respondents failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, the applicants ought to have issued notice to resolve the dispute by invoking arbitration clause at earlier point of time. Having taken over possession and enjoying the property since more than 7 years, the applicants are not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause saying that limitation has to be calculated from the date of issuance of legal notice dated 19.05.2022. The notice invoking arbitration is ex facie time-barred, and the disputes between the parties cannot be referred to arbitration in the facts of this case. In view of the above circumstances, as the present Arbitration Application is not filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Article 137 of Limitation Act, the same is liable to be dismissed.", "Limitation Act, 1963": "9. It is settled law that mere negotiations will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation. Since there is no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 specifying the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11, one would have to take recourse to the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that the Limitation Act shall apply to arbitrators, as it applies to proceedings in Court. Since none of the Articles in Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provide a time period for filing an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11, it would be covered by the residual provision under Article 137 of the Limitation Act which provides that the period of limitation is three years for any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the division. The time limit starts from the period when the right to apply accrues. In the instant case, the applicants except stating that they have repeatedly requested the respondents to make good the loss and pointing out the deficiencies in the construction, have not raised any dispute to resolve the disputes by the Arbitrator. As per the Development Agreement, construction has to be completed within twelve months and the grace period was allowed for a further period of six months. Thus the total time granted in the development agreement for completion of work is 18 months from the date of entering into the Development Agreement. If the respondents failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, the applicants ought to have issued notice to resolve the dispute by invoking arbitration clause at earlier point of time. Having taken over possession and enjoying the property since more than 7 years, the applicants are not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause saying that limitation has to be calculated from the date of issuance of legal notice dated 19.05.2022. The notice invoking arbitration is ex facie time-barred, and the disputes between the parties cannot be referred to arbitration in the facts of this case. In view of the above circumstances, as the present Arbitration Application is not filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Article 137 of Limitation Act, the same is liable to be dismissed." } } }, "counsels": [ "Sri Prabhakar Sripada, Senior Counsel (for Applicants)", "Sri Vijay B. Paropakari (for Respondents)" ], "delivered_date": "08.01.2024", "facts": "The applicants and the respondents entered into Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney on 07.12.2012 for construction on the applicants\u2019 properties. Under these agreements, construction was to be completed within eighteen months, including a grace period. The applicants allege that the respondents delayed the project, used substandard materials, and did not secure an occupancy certificate. They took possession in 2015 but did not invoke arbitration until 2022. The respondents assert that they completed the construction in 2014\u20132015 and handed over possession, maintaining that any claim is time-barred. The applicants have approached the Court under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, requesting the appointment of an arbitrator.", "final_status": "dismissed", "first_party": [ "1. Sri Athelli Mallikarjun and others" ], "grouped_statutes": { "Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996": [ "ORDER : This application, under Section 11(5) \u0026 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short \u201cthe Act\u201d) read with Para (3)(i)(d) of Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, is filed by the applicants seeking to appoint sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the differences and disputes between the applicants and the respondent.", "In the instant case, the applicants entered into Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney with the respondents on 07.12.2012 for construction of Schedule A and B properties and according to the respondents, they have completed the construction during 2014-2015. After a period of over 7 years, the applicants vide legal notice dated 19.05.2022 invoked the arbitration clause, and requested for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The respondents vide reply notice dated 19.06.2022 refused to resolve the dispute through Arbitration as the issue involved is time barred and not maintainable. Therefore, the applicants filed the present Arbitration Application under Section 11(5) \u0026 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the file of this Court.", "9. It is settled law that mere negotiations will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation. Since there is no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 specifying the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11, one would have to take recourse to the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that the Limitation Act shall apply to arbitrators, as it applies to proceedings in Court. Since none of the Articles in Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provide a time period for filing an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11, it would be covered by the residual provision under Article 137 of the Limitation Act which provides that the period of limitation is three years for any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the division. The time limit starts from the period when the right to apply accrues. In the instant case, the applicants except stating that they have repeatedly requested the respondents to make good the loss and pointing out the deficiencies in the construction, have not raised any dispute to resolve the disputes by the Arbitrator. As per the Development Agreement, construction has to be completed within twelve months and the grace period was allowed for a further period of six months. Thus the total time granted in the development agreement for completion of work is 18 months from the date of entering into the Development Agreement. If the respondents failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, the applicants ought to have issued notice to resolve the dispute by invoking arbitration clause at earlier point of time. Having taken over possession and enjoying the property since more than 7 years, the applicants are not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause saying that limitation has to be calculated from the date of issuance of legal notice dated 19.05.2022. The notice invoking arbitration is ex facie time-barred, and the disputes between the parties cannot be referred to arbitration in the facts of this case. In view of the above circumstances, as the present Arbitration Application is not filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Article 137 of Limitation Act, the same is liable to be dismissed." ], "Limitation Act, 1963": [ "4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein inter alia it is stated that the respondents after entering into Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney with applicants on 07.12.2012, completed the construction in all respects in the year 2014-2015 by providing all amenities and facilities as per the agreed specifications of the development agreements which includes providing of two lifts, water connection, standby generator etc., It is further stated that as per the development agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, 50% of the construction portion was already handed over to the applicants during the year 2015 in the form of shops and residential units and the applicants have not raised any objection whatsoever till date and seven (7) years passed by peacefully. It is further stated that under Section 137 of Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation prescribed for filing an application is three years from the date when the right accrues and in the present application, the applicants were silent for seven years after occupying and peacefully enjoying all the amenities provided by the respondents and now they have come up with the present application alleging deficiency of service contrary to the terms of Development-cum-General Power of Attorney and therefore, the present application for appointment of arbitrator is belated and time barred and the claim has become stale.", "It is further stated that under Section 137 of Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation prescribed for filing an application is three years from the date when the right accrues and in the present application, the applicants were silent for seven years after occupying and peacefully enjoying all the amenities provided by the respondents and now they have come up with the present application alleging deficiency of service contrary to the terms of Development-cum-General Power of Attorney and therefore, the present application for appointment of arbitrator is belated and time barred and the claim has become stale.", "9. It is settled law that mere negotiations will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation. Since there is no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 specifying the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11, one would have to take recourse to the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that the Limitation Act shall apply to arbitrators, as it applies to proceedings in Court. Since none of the Articles in Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provide a time period for filing an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11, it would be covered by the residual provision under Article 137 of the Limitation Act which provides that the period of limitation is three years for any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the division. The time limit starts from the period when the right to apply accrues. In the instant case, the applicants except stating that they have repeatedly requested the respondents to make good the loss and pointing out the deficiencies in the construction, have not raised any dispute to resolve the disputes by the Arbitrator. As per the Development Agreement, construction has to be completed within twelve months and the grace period was allowed for a further period of six months. Thus the total time granted in the development agreement for completion of work is 18 months from the date of entering into the Development Agreement. If the respondents failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, the applicants ought to have issued notice to resolve the dispute by invoking arbitration clause at earlier point of time. Having taken over possession and enjoying the property since more than 7 years, the applicants are not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause saying that limitation has to be calculated from the date of issuance of legal notice dated 19.05.2022. The notice invoking arbitration is ex facie time-barred, and the disputes between the parties cannot be referred to arbitration in the facts of this case. In view of the above circumstances, as the present Arbitration Application is not filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Article 137 of Limitation Act, the same is liable to be dismissed." ], "Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996": [ "ORDER : This application, under Section 11(5) \u0026 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short \u201cthe Act\u201d) read with Para (3)(i)(d) of Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, is filed by the applicants seeking to appoint sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the differences and disputes between the applicants and the respondent." ] }, "held": "The court dismissed the arbitration application as time-barred, emphasizing that the applicants failed to invoke the arbitration clause within the statutory three-year period.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": [ "Whether the arbitration clause remains valid and enforceable", "whether the claims are time-barred", "whether construction deficiencies and delays warrant arbitration under the agreements." ], "location": null, "prayer": "This application, under Section 11(5) \u0026 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short \u201cthe Act\u201d) read with Para (3)(i)(d) of Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, is filed by the applicants seeking to appoint sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the differences and disputes between the applicants and the respondent.", "reserved_date": null, "second_party": [ "1. S.S.B Constructions, Registered Partnership Firm, Secunderabad and another" ], "statutes": { "Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996": "ORDER : This application, under Section 11(5) \u0026 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short \u201cthe Act\u201d) read with Para (3)(i)(d) of Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, is filed by the applicants seeking to appoint sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the differences and disputes between the applicants and the respondent.\n\nIn the instant case, the applicants entered into Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney with the respondents on 07.12.2012 for construction of Schedule A and B properties and according to the respondents, they have completed the construction during 2014-2015. After a period of over 7 years, the applicants vide legal notice dated 19.05.2022 invoked the arbitration clause, and requested for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The respondents vide reply notice dated 19.06.2022 refused to resolve the dispute through Arbitration as the issue involved is time barred and not maintainable. Therefore, the applicants filed the present Arbitration Application under Section 11(5) \u0026 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the file of this Court.\n\n9. It is settled law that mere negotiations will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation. Since there is no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 specifying the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11, one would have to take recourse to the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that the Limitation Act shall apply to arbitrators, as it applies to proceedings in Court. Since none of the Articles in Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provide a time period for filing an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11, it would be covered by the residual provision under Article 137 of the Limitation Act which provides that the period of limitation is three years for any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the division. The time limit starts from the period when the right to apply accrues. In the instant case, the applicants except stating that they have repeatedly requested the respondents to make good the loss and pointing out the deficiencies in the construction, have not raised any dispute to resolve the disputes by the Arbitrator. As per the Development Agreement, construction has to be completed within twelve months and the grace period was allowed for a further period of six months. Thus the total time granted in the development agreement for completion of work is 18 months from the date of entering into the Development Agreement. If the respondents failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, the applicants ought to have issued notice to resolve the dispute by invoking arbitration clause at earlier point of time. Having taken over possession and enjoying the property since more than 7 years, the applicants are not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause saying that limitation has to be calculated from the date of issuance of legal notice dated 19.05.2022. The notice invoking arbitration is ex facie time-barred, and the disputes between the parties cannot be referred to arbitration in the facts of this case. In view of the above circumstances, as the present Arbitration Application is not filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Article 137 of Limitation Act, the same is liable to be dismissed.", "Limitation Act, 1963": "4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein inter alia it is stated that the respondents after entering into Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney with applicants on 07.12.2012, completed the construction in all respects in the year 2014-2015 by providing all amenities and facilities as per the agreed specifications of the development agreements which includes providing of two lifts, water connection, standby generator etc., It is further stated that as per the development agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, 50% of the construction portion was already handed over to the applicants during the year 2015 in the form of shops and residential units and the applicants have not raised any objection whatsoever till date and seven (7) years passed by peacefully. It is further stated that under Section 137 of Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation prescribed for filing an application is three years from the date when the right accrues and in the present application, the applicants were silent for seven years after occupying and peacefully enjoying all the amenities provided by the respondents and now they have come up with the present application alleging deficiency of service contrary to the terms of Development-cum-General Power of Attorney and therefore, the present application for appointment of arbitrator is belated and time barred and the claim has become stale.\n\nIt is further stated that under Section 137 of Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation prescribed for filing an application is three years from the date when the right accrues and in the present application, the applicants were silent for seven years after occupying and peacefully enjoying all the amenities provided by the respondents and now they have come up with the present application alleging deficiency of service contrary to the terms of Development-cum-General Power of Attorney and therefore, the present application for appointment of arbitrator is belated and time barred and the claim has become stale.\n\n9. It is settled law that mere negotiations will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation. Since there is no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 specifying the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11, one would have to take recourse to the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that the Limitation Act shall apply to arbitrators, as it applies to proceedings in Court. Since none of the Articles in Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provide a time period for filing an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11, it would be covered by the residual provision under Article 137 of the Limitation Act which provides that the period of limitation is three years for any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the division. The time limit starts from the period when the right to apply accrues. In the instant case, the applicants except stating that they have repeatedly requested the respondents to make good the loss and pointing out the deficiencies in the construction, have not raised any dispute to resolve the disputes by the Arbitrator. As per the Development Agreement, construction has to be completed within twelve months and the grace period was allowed for a further period of six months. Thus the total time granted in the development agreement for completion of work is 18 months from the date of entering into the Development Agreement. If the respondents failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, the applicants ought to have issued notice to resolve the dispute by invoking arbitration clause at earlier point of time. Having taken over possession and enjoying the property since more than 7 years, the applicants are not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause saying that limitation has to be calculated from the date of issuance of legal notice dated 19.05.2022. The notice invoking arbitration is ex facie time-barred, and the disputes between the parties cannot be referred to arbitration in the facts of this case. In view of the above circumstances, as the present Arbitration Application is not filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Article 137 of Limitation Act, the same is liable to be dismissed.", "Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996": "ORDER : This application, under Section 11(5) \u0026 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short \u201cthe Act\u201d) read with Para (3)(i)(d) of Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, is filed by the applicants seeking to appoint sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the differences and disputes between the applicants and the respondent." }, "statutes_headnotes": { "Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996": "\u2014 Appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(5) \u0026 (6) \u2014 Time-barred claims \u2014 Development Agreements dated 07.12.2012 for completion within 18 months \u2014 Construction allegedly finished in 2014\u20132015 with possession taken without objection \u2014 Notice invoking arbitration only on 19.05.2022 \u2014 No dispute raised in the interim period \u2014 Held, claims ex facie time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act \u2014 Application dismissed.", "Limitation Act, 1963": "\u2014 Appointment of arbitrator \u2014 Residual limitation period under Article 137 is three years from accrual of right to apply \u2014 Mere negotiations do not postpone cause of action \u2014 Applicants silent for seven years after taking possession \u2014 Claim held time-barred \u2014 Application dismissed.", "Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996": "\u2014 Appointment of Arbitrator \u2014 Time-barred Claim \u2014 Applicants alleged delayed and substandard construction \u2014 Respondents contended timely completion and prolonged possession without objection \u2014 Claims invoked after several years \u2014 Held, claims barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act \u2014 Application dismissed." } }, "summary": { "formatted_summary": "The applicants entered into development agreements with the respondents for constructing certain properties. They allege delayed and substandard work, while the respondents contend that construction was completed on time and that possession was handed over without objection for years. When the applicants finally sought arbitration, the respondents argued that any claim was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The court ultimately dismissed the application as time-barred." } }