'Such Dead Claim Ought Not To Be Revived': Allahabad High Court Dismisses Application For Appointment Of Arbitrator Filed After 20 Yrs
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed an application for the appointment of an arbitrator filed under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2016 holding that such application being filed after 20 years of occurrence of dispute is bared by delay and laches. Noting that an arbitration clause existed in the agreement between the parties, Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra held...
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed an application for the appointment of an arbitrator filed under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2016 holding that such application being filed after 20 years of occurrence of dispute is bared by delay and laches.
Noting that an arbitration clause existed in the agreement between the parties, Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra held
“What is, however, admitted on record is that a dispute did occur between the parties in the year 2000. The applicant was aware of the arbitration clause. However, the applicant choose not to invoke the arbitration clause and pursued his claim in suit, which has since been withdrawn. This Court finds substance in the objection of the opposite party that such dead and stale claim ought not to be allowed to be revived after such a long lapse of time. The limitation of three years expired in the year 2003. Filing of this petition, after 20 years is thus grossly barred by delay and latches.”
A partnership deed was executed between the Applicant and the Opposite Party on 3rd August, 1985, which contained an arbitration clause. Thereafter, when a dispute arose between the parties and the Applicant approached the civil court by filing Original Suit in August 2000 which was withdrawn in 2019. Subsequently, an application for the appointment of an arbitrator was filed.
The Opposite Party raise objections as to the maintainability of such an application after more than 20 years from the date of cause of action. It was contended that the claim was barred by Clause 132 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, wherein a period of three years is prescribed to invoke the arbitration clause.
The Court dismissed the arbitration application holding that a stale claim from 20 years ago cannot be allowed to be revived.
Case Title: Gurucharan Das vs. Tribhuvan Pal And 2 Others [ARCO No. 69/2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 290
Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Gupta,Jai Prakash Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh,Saurabh Kumar