High Court · 2025

Heard Sri S.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Mukund Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his firm M/s Spick Span Services was shortlisted by the respondent for the purposes of sanitation services at certain monuments in and around the city of Lucknow. An agreement was entered between the parties on 09th December, 2009 for a period of one year. The period of one year expired, however, the petitioner had moved an application on 30th September, 2010 seeking extension of the contract which was considered by the respondent and the period of contract was extended uptil 31st May, 2011. Once the said contract had come to an end, there were certain outstanding bills which were pressed by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted several letters, few of them have been brought on record as part of Annexure No.7 with the petition. The said bills relate to the period of 15.06.2011 then the demand letters relate to the month of April, 2013, September, 2013, May, 2015 and thereafter there are no such demand letters on record. The record further transpires that the petitioner thereafter preferred a writ petition before a Division Bench of this Court bearing No. 7627 (MB) of 2021 which came to be dismissed by the Court on 18.03.2021 leaving it open for the petitioner to take recourse as may be available to him in law. It is only thereafter that the petitioner had moved the application dated 12.07.2021, a copy of which is on record as Annexure No. 13 seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator. The said notice was also not responded and thereafter it was followed by a legal notice sent by the petitioner through counsel dated 31st December, 2021, a copy of which is on record as Annexure No. 14. It further stated that since none responded to the said notice, the petitioner filed the instant petition before this Court. It is urged that the agreement entered between the parties on 09.12.2009 contained an Arbitration Clause that in case of any dispute, the respondent would appoint a sole Arbitrator whose decision would be final and binding. Sri Mukund Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the petition is highly time barred. It is urged that in terms of the agreement and the admitted fact itself, it would reveal that the agreement came to an end in the year 2010 even after accounting for the period of extension, it also came to an end on 31st May, 2011. It is urged that admittedly there is no further extension and any amount which was due and payable to the petitioner but the cause of action arose in the month of June, 2011. Admittedly, the petitioner has made certain demands but despite the fact that there was no response, he chose not to act till the year 2021 when he preferred a writ petition but nevertheless the same was dismissed and in any case once a cause of action accrues and limitation starts to run, it does not stop and for the said reasons, the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation as claims are not live and this is one of the considerations which is to be taken note of by the Court while passing an order under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996. The Court has heard the submissions and also perused the material on record. As far as the agreement dated 09.12.2009 is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. The subsistence of arbitration clause is also not disputed. What is in dispute is the question as to whether the instant petition is time barred or there are any live claims for which an Arbitrator can be appointed.

Heard Sri S.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Mukund Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his firm M/s Spick Span Services was shortlisted by the respondent for the purposes of sanitation services at certain monuments in and around the city of Lucknow. An agreement was entered between the parties on 09th December, 2009 for a period of one year. The period of one year expired, however, the petitioner had moved an application on 30th September, 2010 seeking extension of the contract which was considered by the respondent and the period of contract was extended uptil 31st May, 2011. Once the said contract had come to an end, there were certain outstanding bills which were pressed by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted several letters, few of them have been brought on record as part of Annexure No.7 with the petition. The said bills relate to the period of 15.06.2011 then the demand letters relate to the month of April, 2013, September, 2013, May, 2015 and thereafter there are no such demand letters on record. The record further transpires that the petitioner thereafter preferred a writ petition before a Division Bench of this Court bearing No. 7627 (MB) of 2021 which came to be dismissed by the Court on 18.03.2021 leaving it open for the petitioner to take recourse as may be available to him in law. It is only thereafter that the petitioner had moved the application dated 12.07.2021, a copy of which is on record as Annexure No. 13 seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator. The said notice was also not responded and thereafter it was followed by a legal notice sent by the petitioner through counsel dated 31st December, 2021, a copy of which is on record as Annexure No. 14. It further stated that since none responded to the said notice, the petitioner filed the instant petition before this Court. It is urged that the agreement entered between the parties on 09.12.2009 contained an Arbitration Clause that in case of any dispute, the respondent would appoint a sole Arbitrator whose decision would be final and binding. Sri Mukund Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the petition is highly time barred. It is urged that in terms of the agreement and the admitted fact itself, it would reveal that the agreement came to an end in the year 2010 even after accounting for the period of extension, it also came to an end on 31st May, 2011. It is urged that admittedly there is no further extension and any amount which was due and payable to the petitioner but the cause of action arose in the month of June, 2011. Admittedly, the petitioner has made certain demands but despite the fact that there was no response, he chose not to act till the year 2021 when he preferred a writ petition but nevertheless the same was dismissed and in any case once a cause of action accrues and limitation starts to run, it does not stop and for the said reasons, the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation as claims are not live and this is one of the considerations which is to be taken note of by the Court while passing an order under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996. The Court has heard the submissions and also perused the material on record. As far as the agreement dated 09.12.2009 is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. The subsistence of arbitration clause is also not disputed. What is in dispute is the question as to whether the instant petition is time barred or there are any live claims for which an Arbitrator can be appointed.