Referral Court cannot conduct intricate enquiry into limitation; the Arbitral Tribunal must decide jurisdictional issues.

The applicants, descendants of late Shri R.B. Jatta Shanker Trivedi, sought the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

They alleged that while their father was a partner in M/s J.K. Minerals, the firm was reconstituted by the respondents (other family branches) to exclude the applicants and their legal heirs

Despite continuous correspondence and partial payments made until March 2022, the applicants claimed no final settlement of accounts had occurred

A final notice invoking arbitration was issued on April 3, 2025

The respondents contested the application, arguing the claim was time-barred since the last payment occurred more than three years prior to the invocation of arbitration

1. Whether the High Court, at the referral stage under Section 11, should decide if the underlying claims are barred by the law of limitation.

2. Whether an arbitrator should be appointed despite the respondents' plea that the case is a "stale" or "dead" claim.

The court applied Section 11(6-A) and Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasizing the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz

It relied on Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. v. Northern Coal Field Ltd. (2020), which established that the issue of limitation is a jurisdictional question to be decided by the arbitrator, not the referral court

It further referred to Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. ASAP Fluids (P) Ltd. (2025), affirming that at the Section 11 stage, the court needs only to examine the existence of an arbitration agreement

While Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn. and BSNL v. Nortel Networks allow interference if claims are ex facie dead, the court remains restricted from conducting "mini-trials" on contested facts

The Court observed that while the respondents argued the claims were barred by limitation, there was evidence of continuous correspondence regarding payments and accounts between the parties

The final payment in March 2022 followed by an April 2025 notice indicated that the matter was not a "stale" case that could be dismissed prima facie as deadwood

Applying the mandate of the 2015 Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court precedents, the Court reasoned that any "intricate evidentiary enquiry" into the cause of action or the specific date of limitation falls strictly within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16

The Court held that since the existence of the arbitration agreement was not in dispute, the plea of limitation remains a mixed question of fact and law to be adjudicated by the arbitrator

The Court appointed Shri Justice Ajit Singh (Former Judge, High Court of M.P.) as the sole Arbitrator

It further directed that if the Arbitrator ultimately finds the claims to be time-barred, the parties may be suitably compensated via litigation costs