Subsequent invocation notices do not extend the three-year limitation period for Section 11(6) applications.

The Petitioner-firm was awarded two contracts for internal electrification and repair works in 2006 and 2007

Disputes arose regarding the handing over of sites and payment for executed works, which led the Respondents to cancel the contracts on 24.09.2012

The Petitioner initially invoked the arbitration clause through notices dated 19.06.2013 and 20.06.2013, followed by a reminder on 05.04.2016, but the Respondents did not appoint an arbitrator

The Petitioner issued fresh notices in May 2024 and February 2025, and subsequently filed these petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in November 2025

In its pleadings, the Petitioner suppressed the 2013 and 2016 invocation letters

1. Whether the petitions for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act are barred by the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963

2. Whether subsequent correspondence or a failure by the Respondents to respond to fresh invocation notices after several years extends the period of limitation

The court applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which mandates a three-year limitation period for applications from the date the right to apply accrues

It relied on Arif Azim Company Ltd v. Aptech Limited (2024), establishing that the limitation period for Section 11(6) begins after the lapse of 30 days from a valid notice of invocation if the other party fails or refuses to act

It further cited Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. Asap Fluids Pvt. Ltd. (2025), affirming that referral courts must conduct a limited inquiry to ensure the application is filed within three years

Section 9 of the Limitation Act was applied to hold that once time begins to run, subsequent disabilities or inability to sue do not stop it

The court determined that the "breaking point" or cause of action for filing the Section 11(6) petitions arose in July 2013, exactly thirty days after the Petitioner first invoked the arbitration clause in June 2013

Consequently, the limitation period under Article 137 expired in 2016

The court rejected the Petitioner's reliance on 2024 correspondence, holding that once the limitation clock starts, it cannot be reset by repeating or reiterating invocation notices

The court noted that the Petitioner was guilty of suppressio veri by concealing the 2013 and 2016 notices to create a false impression that the cause of action arose in 2024

It held that a lack of response by the Respondents to the original notice constituted a deemed denial, requiring the Petitioner to approach the court within the three-year statutory window

The court found that the Petitioner failed to provide any legal basis to extend the limitation from the original 2013 cause of action

Both Arbitration Petitions (Arb P Nos. 98/2025 and 99/2025) were dismissed as barred by limitation