### Limitation period for Section 11(6) petition stands extended by Supreme Court’s COVID-19 exclusion orders.

The petitioner-firm was allotted a contract for constructing bunkers and allied infrastructure at Sunderbani in 2006.

The work was completed on 23.05.2009, and a completion certificate was issued on 29.05.2009.

In 2010, a portion of the wall collapsed, leading to a Court of Inquiry and subsequent departmental enquiries.

The petitioner repeatedly requested the final bill and release of payments, claiming the collapse was due to defective designs provided by the department.

After several years of correspondence and a fresh show-cause notice in 2018, the petitioner formally invoked the arbitration clause on 19.02.2020.

The respondents rejected the request on 01.06.2022, asserting the claim was time-barred and that the petitioner had signed the final bill without protest.

The petitioner subsequently moved the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on 03.04.2023.

Whether the petition for appointment of an arbitrator is barred by limitation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Whether the underlying claims of the petitioner are dead/time-barred, precluding a reference to arbitration.

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator when the agreed procedure fails.

The legal principle that the right to apply for an arbitrator accrues 30 days after the service of the invocation notice.

The "Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020" principles and the Supreme Court’s order in Misc. Application No. 21/2022, which mandated the exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from limitation calculations due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court first addressed the respondents' contention that the petition was delayed.

It noted that the formal invocation of arbitration occurred on 19.02.2020, and the limitation period for filing a Section 11 petition only begins 30 days after such notice is served.

Because this 30-day window expired during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court’s extension of limitation.

Consequently, the filing on 03.04.2023 was deemed within the legally permissible timeframe.

Regarding the respondents' argument that the underlying claims were stale or settled (via the final bill), the Court determined that since limitation in this context is a mixed question of fact and law—especially given the pending devaluation statements and inquiries—it must be decided by the Arbitrator rather than the Court at this preliminary stage.

The Court further held that a valid arbitration agreement exists and the disputes are arbitrable.

The Court appointed Mr. Satish Chandra (Retired ADG, MES) as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.

All questions regarding the limitation of the substantive claims were left open for the Arbitrator’s determination.