- (1.) THE only question which requires to be determined in this appeal is whether the application of the appellant under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an Arbitrator was barred by limitation. A few dates may be noted in this connection. THE term 'respondent' occurring hereinafter applies also to predecessors-in-interest of the respondent.
(2.) ON 7th September, 1974 the appellant entered into a contract with the respondent under which the appellant agreed to supply Allumina Ferric of I.C.I. specification to the respondent. The contract was operative till 22-8-1975. ON account of certain disputes and differences which arose between the parties the appellant, on 12-9-1976, gave a notice to the respondent. The notice is not on the record of the proceedings. From the judgment of the High Court which refers to this notice, it seems that under that notice, the appellant stated that huge amounts were due to it under the said contract and it appointed one Sohan Lal Saraf, Barrister-at-Law as its Arbitrator and called upon the respondent to concur in that appointment. No response was given to the notice. Thereafter negotiations seem to have taken place between the parties for settlement of the disputes. Ultimately since the negotiations did not fructify, the appellant on 22-12-1977 filed an application before the Calcutta High Court under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The Calcutta High Court by its judgment and order dated 26-4-1978 held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and directed the appellant to file an application before the appropriate Court. Accordingly on 9-8-1978 the appellant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act before the Subordinate Judge, Ranchi. Its application was allowed on 18-9-1979 and the Court appointed one A. N. Singh, Retired District and Sessions Judge to act as an Arbitrator. The arbitrator has given a reasoned award dated 16-6-1980. The award is for a small amount of Rs. 41,342.00 with interest. And we are surprised at the costly litigation indulged in by the appellant for this small amount. Be that as it may, the appellant had filed a revision before the High Court at Ranchi from the order of the Subordinate Judge granting the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The High Court has, by the impugned order, held that the application of the appellant under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was barred by limitation. Hence no Arbitrator could have been appointed. In the present appeal we have to consider whether the application of the appellant under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was barred by limitation.
(3.) THE relevant Article of the Limitation Act is Article 137 which provides as follows: JUDGEMENT_141_JT1_1999Html1.htm Therefore, the time for the purposes of limitation begins to run from the date when the right to make an application under Section 8 accrues. Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, which is relevant for our present purposes, is reproduced below : "Section 8. Power of Court to appoint arbitrator or umpire.- (1) In any of the following cases - (a) Where an arbitration agreement provides that the reference shall be to one or more arbitrators to be appointed by consent of the parties, and all the parties do not, after differences have arisen, concur in the appointment or appointments; or (b) xxxxxx (c) xxxxxx any party may serve the other parties or the arbitrators, as the case may be, with a written notice to concur in the appointment or appointments or in supplying the vacancy. (2) If the appointment is not made within fifteen clear days after service of the said notice, the Court may, on the application of the party who gave the notice and after giving the other parties an opportunity of being heard, appoint an arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, as the case may be, who shall have like power to act in the reference and to make an award as if he or they had been appointed by consent of all parties." ;