Limitation objections not ex facie apparent are for the arbitral tribunal.

The Directorate General of Ordinance Services (DGOS) contracted with the Respondent for the supply of khaki towels, and the Respondent sub-let the work to the Petitioner under a contract dated 6 March 2006, followed by a supplementary agreement and a further contract.

The Petitioner alleged non-payment of contractual dues and sought appointment of an arbitrator under Clause 17 of the 6 March 2006 contract.

The Respondent objected that the petition was time-barred because the contract dated from 2008 and noted that an earlier Section 11 petition had been withdrawn.

The Petitioner relied on Clause 13, which made payment conditional on the Respondent first receiving full and final payment from DGOS, and on minutes recording that the Respondent received payment from DGOS in 2023.

1. Whether the Petitioner’s claims were so clearly time-barred as to preclude appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11.

2. Whether a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties warranting appointment of a sole arbitrator.

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 limits the court’s inquiry at the appointment stage to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

Clause 17 of the contract provided for referral of disputes arising under or in connection with the contract to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Respondent’s Managing Director, with New Delhi as the venue.

Clause 13 made the Respondent’s payment to the Petitioner conditional on receipt of full and final payment from DGOS.

The Court left objections concerning limitation and other threshold matters for determination by the arbitrator.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court found that the Respondent’s receipt of payment from DGOS in 2023, considered alongside Clause 13, meant that the Petitioner’s claims were not ex facie time-barred so as to prevent appointment of an arbitrator.

The Court also identified Clause 17 as a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and, applying the limited Section 11 inquiry, appointed a sole arbitrator.

It left limitation, arbitrability, maintainability, and jurisdiction objections open for the arbitrator to decide independently.

The arbitration was directed to proceed under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees as per its schedule.

All parties’ objections, including limitation, were left open for determination by the arbitrator, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.