Limitation and claim validity are matters for the arbitrator, not the Section 11 court.

The petitioner contractor and the respondent entered into a construction agreement dated 5 June 2013, containing an arbitration clause, for construction of school buildings.

The petitioner claimed Rs.89,86,365 as payable under the contract.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the respondent to assess and pay the admitted amount; the respondent subsequently paid Rs.7,96,732 and disputed the balance of Rs.81,89,633.

The contempt proceedings were closed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedies in accordance with law.

The petitioner then invoked arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, claiming Rs.22,17,05,299, and applied under Section 11(6) for appointment of an arbitrator.

1. Whether a dispute existed under the agreement warranting appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6), notwithstanding the earlier writ and contempt proceedings.

2. Whether the respondent’s objections concerning limitation, delay, Clause 35 of the General Conditions, the increased claim, and the effect of the earlier proceedings should be determined by the Court at the appointment stage or left to the arbitrator.

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator where the agreed appointment process has not resulted in an appointment; Section 21 concerns commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request to refer the dispute to arbitration.

At the referral stage, the Court does not undertake a detailed adjudication of the merits of monetary claims or ordinarily determine disputed issues such as limitation and contractual compliance.

Relying on Sri General Insurance Company Limited v. Krish Spinning, (2024) 12 SCC 1, the Court held that limitation may be raised and adjudicated before the arbitrator.

The agreement’s arbitration clause provided for disputes to be referred to a sole arbitrator under the 1996 Act.

The respondent’s payment of only Rs.7,96,732 and its denial of liability for the balance demonstrated an existing dispute under the agreement.

The earlier writ order addressed assessment and payment of the admitted amount, not final determination of the disputed claim; the contempt proceedings also reserved the petitioner’s right to pursue remedies in law.

The Court therefore declined to decide at the Section 11 stage whether the claim was time-barred, barred by Clause 35, affected by the earlier proceedings, or properly quantified—including the increase to Rs.22,17,05,299—leaving those matters for the arbitrator.

All claims and objections, including limitation, delay, maintainability, the effect of Clause 35, the amount claimed, interest and GST, were left open for determination by the arbitrator in accordance with law.