Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

32. Learned Counsel for the respondent invited my attention to the paragraph 64 of the arbitral award and would submit that the petitioner had contended before the learned Arbitrator that it was entitled to a defense of equitable set off which would be affected by the provisions of Limitation Act. He submits that there was no such plea in the written statement and counter claim filed by the petitioner before the learned Arbitrator. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that in so far as the counter claim is concerned, period for filing the counter claim would not be covered under Section 3(2)(b)(i) but would be covered by Section 3(2)(b)(ii) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which would be the date on which the counter claim was lodged before the learned Arbitrator. The date of lodging the counter claim i.e. 19th December, 2016 would be the date on which the limitation for making the counter claim would stop.

85. A perusal of para 64 of the arbitral award indicates that it was urged by the petitioner before the learned arbitrator that the petitioner was entitled to a defence of equitable set off. In my view, the learned Arbitrator rightly rejected the said plea on the ground that there was no such plea in the written statement and counter claim filed by the petitioner before the learned arbitrator.

86. I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that prior to the date of filing of counter claim/ set off before the learned arbitrator, the petitioner had already adjusted the amount recoverable by the petitioner from the respondent against the security deposit amount lying with the petitioner. Submission of the learned Senior Counsel is contrary to the correspondence exchanged between the parties forming part of the record before the learned arbitrator and the prayers in the claim for set off and counter claim.