A Section 11 court must leave substantive claim limitation to the arbitral tribunal.

The parties entered into a registered Development Agreement dated 15 August 2020 concerning property in Howrah.

The owners alleged that they delivered the original title documents and vacant possession, but the developers paid only the initial ₹1,00,000 instalment, failed to obtain a sanctioned building plan, and did not proceed with construction. The developers disputed delivery of possession and documents, attributing the delay to the owners.

After correspondence between the parties, the owners issued a notice invoking arbitration on 9 June 2025. The developers refused arbitration by letter dated 9 July 2025. The owners then applied under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of a sole arbitrator.

Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11 where the existence of the arbitration agreement is established but the developers dispute performance and raise other objections

Whether the owners’ claims being allegedly time-barred could prevent reference to arbitration at the Section 11 stage

Whether the Section 11 application itself was time-barred or the notice invoking arbitration was invalid

Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which the Court held continues to govern because its omission by the 2019 Amendment had not been notified, limits the referral court’s inquiry principally to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement; questions of jurisdiction, arbitrability, admissibility, and claim limitation are ordinarily for the arbitral tribunal under the competence-competence principle in Section 16.

Under Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Nortel Networks India (P) Ltd., a court may refuse reference where a claim is manifestly time-barred and no doubt exists, but must refer where even slight doubt remains.

Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd. holds that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a Section 11 application, with time running from the failure or refusal to act on a valid arbitration notice.

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning and Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. ASAP Fluids Pvt. Ltd. clarify that the referral court should determine whether the Section 11 application is timely but should leave an evidentiary inquiry into limitation of the substantive claims to the arbitrator.

Section 21 requires a request to refer the dispute to arbitration but prescribes no particular form; Section 40 provides that an arbitration agreement is not discharged by a party’s death.

The registered Development Agreement contained an arbitration clause, its existence and validity were not disputed, and the parties’ competing allegations concerned performance of that agreement; the disputes therefore fell within the clause.

The 9 June 2025 letter sufficiently invoked arbitration, and the developers’ own pleadings confirmed that they responded to it and declined arbitration.

The Section 11 application, filed on 5 January 2026 after the developers’ refusal on 9 July 2025, was within Article 137’s three-year period.

Whether the underlying claims were time-barred required examination of the parties’ conduct, the absence of a sanctioned plan, the disputed delivery of possession, and the effect of their correspondence. Those matters required an evidentiary inquiry and were not so clear as to constitute “deadwood” at the referral stage; they were therefore left to the arbitrator.

The other objections likewise concerned disputed facts or were unsupported by specific grounds.

The arbitrator is to make the disclosure required by Section 12(1), subject to Section 12(5), and may fix remuneration under the Fourth Schedule or by agreement.

All questions concerning arbitrability, maintainability, claims and counterclaims, limitation, jurisdiction, and other issues were left open for determination by the arbitrator in accordance with law.