Limitation objections to arbitration claims are for the arbitrator to decide, not the Section 11 court.

The petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on an arbitration clause in a work order dated 1 July 2011.

He claimed that the respondent had withheld approximately ₹7,50,000 in retention amounts.

After the petitioner filed a recovery suit, the Gurugram court referred the disputes to arbitration under Section 8 on 16 May 2023. The petitioner later issued arbitration notices and pursued Section 11 proceedings in Gurugram, which he withdrew with liberty to approach the appropriate forum; he then issued a fresh notice on 8 April 2026 and filed the present petition.

The respondent opposed the petition on limitation grounds, arguing that the underlying claim was stale and that Section 14 of the Limitation Act did not apply. Both parties agreed to mediation and, if it failed, to arbitration.

1. Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator despite the respondent’s objection that the underlying claims and arbitration invocation were time-barred.

2. Whether the disputes should be referred to mediation before arbitration proceeds.

Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court’s enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, as stated in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754.

The Act also requires the arbitrator to furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2).

The respondent invoked limitation principles, including the availability of exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963; however, the Court did not decide those questions and left the parties at liberty to raise them before the arbitrator.

The Court noted that the existence of a valid arbitration agreement was undisputed and that both parties agreed to arbitration if mediation failed.

Applying the limited Section 11 enquiry, the Court found no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator, without deciding whether the claims or invocation were time-barred. It referred the parties to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and reserved limitation, arbitrability, and jurisdiction objections for determination by the arbitrator in accordance with law.

If mediation failed, Mr. Anshul K. Bishnoi was appointed sole arbitrator, with the arbitration to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre. The respondent was permitted to raise limitation objections, and both parties could raise all other pleas before the arbitrator; the Court expressed no final view on their merits.