Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Since the Petitioner Shri Ranjit Singh had impleaded himself before the Arbitrator and had also filed the claim petition before the learned Arbitrator, this Court is not going behind the same.

10. Coming to the question of limitation and whether the learned Arbitrator can decide the same, the observations of the Supreme Court in Patel Engineering case (supra) are that the Chief Justice, under 11(6) usually pronounces on the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, whether there is an arbitration agreement and whether there is a live and subsisting dispute. Once the learned Arbitrator is appointed, the Arbitral Tribunal has to decide the disputes on merits. The observations in Patel Engineering case (supra) are relevant and set out herein below:

11. The judgment in Patel Engineering case (supra) has been subsequently considered in National Insurance case (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has categorised the various issues, which the Court has to rule upon in a section 11 petition. The three categories are set out in paragraph 22 of the said judgment and extracted herein below:

"22. Where the intervention of the court is sought for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11, the duty of the Chief Justice or his designate is defined in SBP & Co. This Court identified and segregated the preliminary issues that may arise for consideration in an application under Section 11 of the Act into three categories, that is, (i) issues which the Chief Justice or his Designate is bound to decide; (ii) issues which he can also decide, that is, issues which he may choose to decide; and (iii) issues which should be left to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide.