Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act”) seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator by this Court.

2. A dispute has been raised by the petitioner against the respondent, which arises out of the water supply agreement dated 25.07.2013 and another agreement dated 01.10.2014. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit on instructions that since a proper arbitration invocation notice was not sent as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Act for the agreement dated 01.10.2014, the petitioner will be satisfied if an Arbitrator is appointed by this Court for the dispute arising out of the water supply agreement dated 25.07.2013 alone. However, he seeks liberty for the petitioner to file a fresh petition seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator after issuing a proper invocation notice insofar as the second agreement dated 01.10.2014 is concerned. Therefore, this Court for the present will have to decide only whether the dispute raised by the petitioner arising out of the water supply agreement dated 25.07.2013 is arbitrable or not.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent raising the following objections:-

a) The claim of the petitioner is hopelessly barred by law of limitation, since the contract dated 25.07.2013 got expired on 31.12.2015 itself, but, arbitration was initiated by the petitioner only in the year 2024.
b) The Arbitration invocation notice dated 10.09.2024 issued by the petitioner, prior to the filing of this petition under Section 11 of the Act, does not pertain to the contract dated 25.07.2013, but, it pertains to other contracts only including the contract dated 01.10.2014.
(b) The limitation for filing a petition under Section 11 of the Act is within a period of 3 years from the date of the arbitration invocation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 08:41:32 pm ) Arb.OP.(comdiv) No.19 of 2025 notice issued as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Act.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the contract dated 25.07.2013, which is the subject matter of the dispute raised by the petitioner, as well as Amendment No.1 to the Water Supply Agreement dated 24.07.2015, and would submit that as seen from those contracts, the contract itself got expired on 31.12.2015 itself and therefore, the claim of the petitioner against the respondent is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. He would submit that the arbitration invocation notice dated 10.09.2024 issued by the petitioner is not a valid notice. He would submit that in the said notice, the claim has not been made by the petitioner arising out of the contract dated 25.07.2013, but, the claim arises out of various other contracts including the contract dated 01.10.2014, which is not the dispute raised by the petitioner in this petition. He would submit that eventhough the respondent has nominated an Arbitrator through their reply dated 09.10.2024 sent by them to the arbitration invocation notice dated 10.09.2024 issued by the petitioner, in the said reply, it has been made clear by the respondent that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 08:41:32 pm ) Arb.OP.(comdiv) No.19 of 2025 the claim of the petitioner is hopelessly barred by law of limitation and therefore, the nomination of an Arbitrator by the respondent in their reply dated 09.10.2024 has no relevancy for adjudicating this petition filed under Section 11 of the Act.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that in the arbitration invocation notice dated 10.09.2024 issued by the petitioner, a dispute has not been raised insofar as the contract dated 25.07.2013 is concerned. However, the same is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he would point out to the reference made in the arbitration invocation notice dated 10.09.2024, which refers to the contract dated 25.07.2013 as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed all the other factual issues raised by the learned counsel for the respondent.