Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

26. In so far as the issue whether claim made by the applicants are barred by law of limitation or not, reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (supra) would be relevant. In paragraph 22 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has categorized three types of issues which may arise in an application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act. It is held by the Supreme court that whether claim is dead (long barred) claim or alive claim, it is for the Chief Justice or his designate to choose whether to decide such issue or to leave them to the decision of the arbitral tribunal. Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Vs. SBP Engineering Ltd. AIR 2011 SC 987 has held that the designate Judge shall avoid the risks and dangers involved in deciding an issue relating to the tenability of the claim without necessary pleadings and documents, in a proceedings relating to the limited issue of appointing an arbitrator. It is held in that matter that the designate Judge committed a jurisdictional error in dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 11 of the Act, on the ground that the claim for extra cost was barred by res judicata and by .. 30 .. arbap-207.08J.sxw limitation. The Supreme Court has set aside the said judgment of the designate Judge and has held that it is open to the respondent to raise all contentions against the claim of the applicant including the contention of limitation, maintainability and res judicata, before the arbitrator. I am respectfully bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company and in the case of Indian Oil Ltd. (supra).

Paragraph 19 of the Judgment of the Indian Oil Ltd. (supra) reads thus :

"19. The Designate should have avoided the risks and dangers involved in deciding an issue relating to the tenability of the claim without necessary pleadings and documents, in a proceeding relating to the limited issue of appointing an Arbitrator. It is clear that the Designate committed a jurisdictional error in dismissing the application filed by the Appellant under Section 11 of the Act, on the ground that the claim for extra cost was barred by res judicata and by limitation. Consideration of an application under Section 11 of the Act, does not extend to consideration of the merits of the claim or the chances of success of the claim."