The Delhi High Court ruled that a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not limited by time if the period is spent on genuine court proceedings that lack jurisdiction.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not limited by time if the time was spent on genuine court actions that lacked jurisdiction. The Court appointed an independent arbitrator to resolve the disputes after the Petitioner filed a Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Subramonium Prasad stated, “Once the suit was resolved under Section 8 of the A&C Act, the Respondent cannot now claim that the petition is time-barred.” The Petitioner had started proceedings under the Commercial Courts Act by submitting an application under Section 12(a) on March 16, 2021, seeking pre-litigation mediation. According to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, time spent on genuine court actions without jurisdiction is excluded. The Petitioner approached the Commercial Court, which is the appropriate court for these disputes.

Advocate Anuj Kumar Sinha represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Arjun Sawhney represented the Respondent. The Respondent had issued a work order to the Petitioner for a Fire-Fighting system, which included an Arbitration Clause. The Petitioner argued that delays in the project were due to unpaid bills from the Respondent, who later terminated the contract. The High Court noted that the Petitioner had filed an application for pre-litigation mediation as required by the A&C Act, leading to a Non-Starter Report. However, the Respondent claimed that the Petitioner’s claim was time-barred, arguing that referring the parties to arbitration would not be beneficial.

This Court is willing to send the dispute to Arbitration because the Petitioner’s claim is not obviously time-barred. The Arbitrator can decide if the Petitioner can benefit from Section 14 of the Limitation Act based on the specific details of this case. The Court noted that the Petitioner sought relief under the Commercial Courts Act in 2019, which was within the time limit. The pre-mediation process did not proceed due to the Respondent’s absence, leading the Petitioner to file a suit. However, the suit was dismissed after the Respondent submitted an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act, citing an Arbitration clause. The Court believes that the Petitioner’s claim cannot be considered completely invalid. Therefore, the High Court closed the petition.

Cause Title: JKR Techno Engineers Pvt Ltd v. JMD Limited (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:8758) Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Anuj Kumar Sinha
Respondent: Advocates Arjun Sawhney, Rohan Bhambri and Arnav Gosain