Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1228
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2025
Alan Mervyn Arthur Stephenson
…Petitioner
Versus
J. Xavier Jayarajan
…Respondent
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1.
The petitioner who is residing in United Kingdom,
having entered into a partnership, the deed of which
contained an arbitration clause, seeks for the appointment
of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent contends that the
claim is hopelessly barred by limitation.
2. The brief fact to be noticed is that the partnership was
entered into by the petitioner’s sister and the respondent on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.10.14
13:16:44 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 4
Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2025
10.04.2008 with the objective of engaging in a real estate
business; inter alia of construction of service apartments.
The business was carried on, according to the respondent,
with the active involvement of the petitioner, the brother of
one of the partners. Later, the said partnership was
dissolved on 22.12.2008. Both parties admit that a new
partnership was entered into between the petitioner and the
respondent on 20.09.2014. The petitioner alleges that
substantial amounts were paid by him amounting to
Rs.2,31,85,600/-, on the strength of Clause 6 of the
Partnership Agreement which obligated 75% of the profits
to be transferred to the petitioner, nothing was done in the
property purchased on 04.05.2016. It is hence the prayer for
appointment of an arbitrator.
3. Admittedly, the purchase of the land alleged, was on
04.05.2016 and as per the notice dated 09.12.2020 produced
as per the Annexure P-1, the amounts were paid before the
said date. As on the date of notice, hence the claim for
recovery of amounts was barred by limitation.
Page 2 of 4
Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2025
4. It is also pertinent that the petitioner, in their
arbitration request itself, admits that on 06.05.2017, a Police
Complaint was raised before the Police Commissioner,
Bangalore against the respondent for fraud and cheating.
This complaint obviously was closed since the petitioner
had approached the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Mayohall at Bangalore under Section 200 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, which stood rejected on 16.06.2017.
After the recital of the above facts, the petitioner in the
arbitration request speaks of the receipt of payment of Rs. 1
lakh on 04.08.2017. Even if limitation is computed from the
said date, the claim stands barred on 09.12.2020, when the
notice was issued seeking appointment of arbitrator.
5. The Counter Affidavit of the respondent also speaks of
a delayed challenge having been made to the order of the
Magistrate after about a year which was also rejected by the
Sessions Judge for reason of no explanation having been
offered for the delay of 234 days. Even after the notice
issued on 09.12.2020, the arbitration request was first made
Page 3 of 4
Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2025
before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru on
22.06.2022 which remained in that Court till 20.01.2025,
when the same was disposed of leaving liberty to take
appropriate remedies. Relying on it, the petitioner filed the
current petition. It goes without saying even the notice of
arbitration was delayed and barred by limitation and the
arbitration request itself was made two years after the initial
notice.
6. The Arbitration Petition seeking appointment of
arbitrator stands dismissed.
7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
….…..……………………. CJI.
(B.R. GAVAI)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
New Delhi;
October 14, 2025.
Page 4 of 4
Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2025
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2025
Alan Mervyn Arthur Stephenson
…Petitioner
Versus
J. Xavier Jayarajan
…Respondent
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1.
The petitioner who is residing in United Kingdom,
having entered into a partnership, the deed of which
contained an arbitration clause, seeks for the appointment
of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent contends that the
claim is hopelessly barred by limitation.
2. The brief fact to be noticed is that the partnership was
entered into by the petitioner’s sister and the respondent on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.10.14
13:16:44 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 4
Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2025
10.04.2008 with the objective of engaging in a real estate
business; inter alia of construction of service apartments.
The business was carried on, according to the respondent,
with the active involvement of the petitioner, the brother of
one of the partners. Later, the said partnership was
dissolved on 22.12.2008. Both parties admit that a new
partnership was entered into between the petitioner and the
respondent on 20.09.2014. The petitioner alleges that
substantial amounts were paid by him amounting to
Rs.2,31,85,600/-, on the strength of Clause 6 of the
Partnership Agreement which obligated 75% of the profits
to be transferred to the petitioner, nothing was done in the
property purchased on 04.05.2016. It is hence the prayer for
appointment of an arbitrator.
3. Admittedly, the purchase of the land alleged, was on
04.05.2016 and as per the notice dated 09.12.2020 produced
as per the Annexure P-1, the amounts were paid before the
said date. As on the date of notice, hence the claim for
recovery of amounts was barred by limitation.
Page 2 of 4
Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2025
4. It is also pertinent that the petitioner, in their
arbitration request itself, admits that on 06.05.2017, a Police
Complaint was raised before the Police Commissioner,
Bangalore against the respondent for fraud and cheating.
This complaint obviously was closed since the petitioner
had approached the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Mayohall at Bangalore under Section 200 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, which stood rejected on 16.06.2017.
After the recital of the above facts, the petitioner in the
arbitration request speaks of the receipt of payment of Rs. 1
lakh on 04.08.2017. Even if limitation is computed from the
said date, the claim stands barred on 09.12.2020, when the
notice was issued seeking appointment of arbitrator.
5. The Counter Affidavit of the respondent also speaks of
a delayed challenge having been made to the order of the
Magistrate after about a year which was also rejected by the
Sessions Judge for reason of no explanation having been
offered for the delay of 234 days. Even after the notice
issued on 09.12.2020, the arbitration request was first made
Page 3 of 4
Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2025
before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru on
22.06.2022 which remained in that Court till 20.01.2025,
when the same was disposed of leaving liberty to take
appropriate remedies. Relying on it, the petitioner filed the
current petition. It goes without saying even the notice of
arbitration was delayed and barred by limitation and the
arbitration request itself was made two years after the initial
notice.
6. The Arbitration Petition seeking appointment of
arbitrator stands dismissed.
7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
….…..……………………. CJI.
(B.R. GAVAI)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
New Delhi;
October 14, 2025.
Page 4 of 4
Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2025