Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Section 21 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 20 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
State Of Orissa And Anr vs Damodar Das on 15 December, 1995
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Damodar Das,
(1996) 2 SCC 216, has held that the period of limitation for
commencing an arbitration runs from the date on which the cause of
action accrued that is to say, from the date when the claimant first
acquired either a right of action or a right to require that an
Arbitration Case No. 196 of 2006 [
8]
arbitration take place upon the dispute concerned. It was held to the
following effect:-
Section 43 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Panchu Gopal Bose vs Board Of Trustees For Port Of Calcutta on 23 April, 1993
In Panchu Gopal Bose v. Board of Trustees for Port of
Calcutta, (1993)4 SCC 338, this Court had held that the
provisions of the Limitation Act would apply to arbitrations
and notwithstanding any term in the contract to the contrary,
cause of arbitration for the purpose of limitation shall be
deemed to have accrued to the party, in respect of any such
matter at the time when it should have accrued but for the
contract. Cause of arbitration shall be deemed to have
commenced when one party serves the notice on the other
party requiring the appointment of an arbitrator. The question
is when the cause of arbitration arises in the absence of
issuance of a notice or omission to issue notice for a long time
after the contract was executed? Arbitration implies to charter
out timeous commencement of arbitration availing of the
arbitral agreement, as soon as difference or dispute has arisen.
Delay defeats justice and equity aids promptitude and
resultant consequences. Defaulting party should bear the
hardship and should not transmit the hardship to the other
party, after the claim in the cause of arbitration was allowed to
be barred. It was further held that where the arbitration
agreement does not really exist or ceased to exist or where the
dispute applies outside the scope of arbitration agreement
allowing the claim, after a considerable lapse of time, would be
a harassment to the opposite party. It was accordingly held in
that case that since the petitioner slept over his rights for
more than 10 years, by his conduct he allowed the arbitration
to be barred by limitation and the Court would be justified in
relieving the party from arbitration agreement under Sections
5 and 12(2)(b) of the Act."