The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur allowed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an arbitrator despite a 12-year delay since the initial dispute.
The matter arose from a 2009 agreement for loading, unloading, and transporting procured grains. When the corporation deducted amounts for Rail Transit Loss (RTL), the applicant invoked arbitration through a notice in 2012 and a reminder in 2013. With no response, a writ petition was filed in 2014, which was ultimately dismissed in 2024 on grounds of alternate remedy. The present arbitration application was filed shortly thereafter.
The non-applicant opposed the plea, citing inordinate delay and arguing the claim had become stale. However, the Court, relying on Section 14 of the Limitation Act, held that time spent pursuing the writ petition before the wrong forum deserved to be excluded from the limitation computation. It also noted that under the unamended Act, it retained jurisdiction to consider limitation at this stage.
Citing judgments such as Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd, 2018 AIR MP 74 and Ellora Paper Mills Ltd, (2022) 3 SCC 1, the Court observed that the applicant had continuously pursued the matter and had not abandoned the arbitration remedy. Accordingly, the delay was condoned, and Justice H.P. Singh (Retd.) was appointed as the sole arbitrator.
Appearances:
Shri Siddharth Gulatee – learned Senior Advocate with Shri Ankit Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Vivek Ranjan Pandey – Advocate for the respondents.
