# BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR v. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD

- **Citation:** [2021] 2 S.C.R. 644
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-03-10
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 843-844 of 2021
- **Bench:** Indu Malhotra, Ajay Rastogi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-anr-v-m-s-nortel-networks-india-pvt-ltd-34933
- **Pages:** 33

## Headnote

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s.11 - Application
under - Period of limitation - Tender issued by appellant -
Respondent awarded the purchase order - On completion of the
works, appellant withheld certain amount towards liquidated
damages/other levies - Respondent raised claim for payment of the
same in May 2014 - Rejected by appellant in August 2014 - In
2020, respondent invoked the arbitration clause for appointment
of arbitrator - Rejected by appellant - Respondent filed application
u/s.11 - High Court referred the disputes to arbitration - Review
petition - Dismissed - On appeal, held: Period of limitation for
filing an application u/s.11 would be governed by Article 137 of
the First Schedule, 1963 Act - It will begin to run from the date
when there is failure to appoint the arbitrator - In exceptional cases,
where claims are ex facie time- barred, the Court may refuse to make
reference - In the present case, cause of action arose on 04.08.14,
when the claims made by respondent were rejected by appellant -
Notice of arbitration invoked on 29.04.20 was rejected by appellant
on 09.06.20 - Thus, application u/s.11 filed before High Court on
24.07.20 was within limitation period prescribed u/Article 137 i.e.
within 3 years of rejection of the request for appointment of the
arbitrator - However, claims are ex-facie time barred by over 51⁄2
years - Disputes between the parties cannot be referred to arbitration
- Impugned orders set aside - Application filed by respondent u/
s.11, dismissed - Limitation Act, 1963 - First Schedule- Article 137
- Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 - ss.11(13),
29A, 34(6) - Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019
- s.11(6A), (8) - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - s.13, 14 - Maxims.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Scheme & object of
the Act - ss.8, 9(2), 11, 13, 116(2), 34(3) - Amendment to s.11 -
Held: Parliament may consider amending s.11 to provide a period
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 644
644
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
645
of limitation for filing an application under this provision in
consonance with the object of expeditious disposal of arbitration
proceedings.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s.11 - Jurisdiction
under - Scope of - Pre & post amendment position - Discussed.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Limitation -
Jurisdictional issue or admissibility issue - Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Period of limitation for filing an application under
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been framed
for expeditious resolution of disputes, and various provisions have
been incorporated in the Act to ensure that the arbitral
proceedings are conducted in a time-bound manner. Various time
lines have been provided in the 1996 Act. The 1996 Act was
amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act,
2015 to incorporate further provisions for expeditious disposal
of arbitral proceedings. Section 11 does not prescribe any time
period for filing an application under sub-section (6) for
appointment of an arbitrator. Since there is no provision in the
1996 Act specifying the period of limitation for filing an application
under Section 11, one would have to take recourse to the
Limitation Act, 1963, as per Section 43 of the Arbitration Act,
which provides that the Limitation Act shall apply to arbitrations,
as it applies to proceedings in Court. Since none of the Articles
in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provide a time period
for filing an application for appointment of an arbitrator under
Section 11, it would be covered by the residual provision Article
137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The limitation for filing an
application under Section 11 would arise upon the failure to make
the appointment of the arbitrator within a period of 30 days' from
issuance of the notice invoking arbitration. In other words, an
application under Section 11 can be filed only after a notice

## Text

_Characters 0–39,901 of 75,190. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39901 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR.
v.
M/S NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 843-844 of 2021)
MARCH 10, 2021
[INDU MALHOTRA AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s.11 - Application
under - Period of limitation - Tender issued by appellant -
Respondent awarded the purchase order - On completion of the
works, appellant withheld certain amount towards liquidated
damages/other levies - Respondent raised claim for payment of the
same in May 2014 - Rejected by appellant in August 2014 - In
2020, respondent invoked the arbitration clause for appointment
of arbitrator - Rejected by appellant - Respondent filed application
u/s.11 - High Court referred the disputes to arbitration - Review
petition - Dismissed - On appeal, held: Period of limitation for
filing an application u/s.11 would be governed by Article 137 of
the First Schedule, 1963 Act - It will begin to run from the date
when there is failure to appoint the arbitrator - In exceptional cases,
where claims are ex facie time- barred, the Court may refuse to make
reference - In the present case, cause of action arose on 04.08.14,
when the claims made by respondent were rejected by appellant -
Notice of arbitration invoked on 29.04.20 was rejected by appellant
on 09.06.20 - Thus, application u/s.11 filed before High Court on
24.07.20 was within limitation period prescribed u/Article 137 i.e.
within 3 years of rejection of the request for appointment of the
arbitrator - However, claims are ex-facie time barred by over 51⁄2
years - Disputes between the parties cannot be referred to arbitration
- Impugned orders set aside - Application filed by respondent u/
s.11, dismissed - Limitation Act, 1963 - First Schedule- Article 137
- Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 - ss.11(13),
29A, 34(6) - Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019
- s.11(6A), (8) - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - s.13, 14 - Maxims.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Scheme & object of
the Act - ss.8, 9(2), 11, 13, 116(2), 34(3) - Amendment to s.11 -
Held: Parliament may consider amending s.11 to provide a period
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 644
644
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
645
of limitation for filing an application under this provision in
consonance with the object of expeditious disposal of arbitration
proceedings.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s.11 - Jurisdiction
under - Scope of - Pre & post amendment position - Discussed.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Limitation -
Jurisdictional issue or admissibility issue - Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Period of limitation for filing an application under
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been framed
for expeditious resolution of disputes, and various provisions have
been incorporated in the Act to ensure that the arbitral
proceedings are conducted in a time-bound manner. Various time
lines have been provided in the 1996 Act. The 1996 Act was
amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act,
2015 to incorporate further provisions for expeditious disposal
of arbitral proceedings. Section 11 does not prescribe any time
period for filing an application under sub-section (6) for
appointment of an arbitrator. Since there is no provision in the
1996 Act specifying the period of limitation for filing an application
under Section 11, one would have to take recourse to the
Limitation Act, 1963, as per Section 43 of the Arbitration Act,
which provides that the Limitation Act shall apply to arbitrations,
as it applies to proceedings in Court. Since none of the Articles
in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provide a time period
for filing an application for appointment of an arbitrator under
Section 11, it would be covered by the residual provision Article
137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The limitation for filing an
application under Section 11 would arise upon the failure to make
the appointment of the arbitrator within a period of 30 days' from
issuance of the notice invoking arbitration. In other words, an
application under Section 11 can be filed only after a notice of
arbitration in respect of the particular claim(s) / dispute(s) to be
referred to arbitration [as contemplated by Section 21 of the Act]
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. v. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS
INDIA PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
is made, and there is failure to make the appointment. The period
of limitation for filing a petition seeking appointment of an
arbitrator/s cannot be confused or conflated with the period of
limitation applicable to the substantive claims made in the
underlying commercial contract. The period of limitation for such
claims is prescribed under various Articles of the Limitation Act,
1963. The limitation for deciding the underlying substantive
disputes is necessarily distinct from that of filing an application
for appointment of an arbitrator. [Paras 6, 7, 9-12][654-E-F;
655-C; 656-B-D; 657-B-C, D-G]
1.2 Given the vacuum in the law to provide a period of
limitation under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
1996, the Courts have taken recourse to the position that the
limitation period would be governed by Article 137, which
provides a period of 3 years from the date when the right to apply
accrues. However, this is an unduly long period for filing an
application u/s. 11, since it would defeat the very object of the
Act, which provides for expeditious resolution of commercial
disputes within a time bound period. In view of the legislative
intent, the period of 3 years for filing an application under Section
11 would run contrary to the scheme of the Act. It would be
necessary for Parliament to effect an amendment to Section 11,
prescribing a specific period of limitation within which a party
may move the court for making an application for appointment of
the arbitration under Section 11 of the 1996 Act. In the present
case, it is found that the application under Section 11 was filed
within the limitation period prescribed under Article 137 of the
Limitation Act. Nortel issued the notice of arbitration vide letter
dated 29.04.2020, which was rejected by BSNL vide its reply dated
09.06.2020. The application under Section 11 was filed before
the High Court on 24.07.2020 i.e. within the period of 3 years of
rejection of the request for appointment of the arbitrator. [Paras
17, 18][661-C-H]
2.1 Whether the Court may refuse to make the reference
under Section 11 where the claims are ex facie time-barred
Legislative History of Section 11
Pre-amendment position
Under the principal Act, the legislative scheme under
Section 11 was that if the parties had agreed on a procedure for
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
647
appointment of the arbitrator, the appointment had to be made in
accordance with that procedure. Absent an agreement between
the parties, the default power of appointment in a domestic
arbitration would be exercised by the Chief Justice of the High
Court, or person, or institution, designated by him. In the case of
an international commercial arbitration, the default power would
be exercised by the Chief Justice of India, or the person, or
institution, designated by him. The object of conferring the power
of appointment on the highest judicial authority was to give
credibility to the procedure of appointment. [Para 19][662-A-E]
Post-amendment position
The 1996 Act was amended by the Arbitration and
Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 which came into force with
effect from 23.10.2015. The 2015 Amendment Act replaced the
Chief Justice of the High Court as the appointing authority for
exercising the default power of appointment in the case of
domestic arbitrations, by the concerned High Court; and, in
respect of international commercial arbitrations, the default power
would be exercised by the Supreme Court, in place of the Chief
Justice of India. It inserted Sub-section (6A) and (6B) in Section
11. The effect of the amendment was that if the existence of the
arbitration agreement was not in dispute, all other issues would
be left for the arbitral tribunal to decide. This was in reinforcement
of the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz, which empowers the
tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections
with respect to the validity of the arbitration agreement; and
thereby minimize judicial intervention at the pre-reference stage.
In view of the legislative mandate contained in the amended
Section 11(6A), the Court is now required only to examine the
existence of the arbitration agreement. All other preliminary or
threshold issues are left to be decided by the arbitrator under
Section 16, which enshrines the kompetenz- komptenz principle.
The doctrine of kompetenz-komptenz implies that the arbitral
tribunal is empowered, and has the competence to rule on its
own jurisdiction, including determination of all jurisdictional
issues. This was intended to minimise judicial intervention at
the pre-reference stage, so that the arbitral process is not
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. v. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS
INDIA PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
thwarted at the threshold when a preliminary objection is raised
by the parties. [Paras 23, 26][665-C-F; 666-B-C; 668-E-G]
2.2 Issue of Limitation
Limitation is normally a mixed question of fact and law, and
would lie within the domain of the arbitral tribunal. There is,
however, a distinction between jurisdictional and admissibility
issues. An issue of 'jurisdiction' pertains to the power and
authority of the arbitrators to hear and decide a case.
Jurisdictional issues include objections to the competence of the
arbitrator or tribunal to hear a dispute, such as lack of consent,
or a dispute falling outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.
Issues with respect to the existence, scope and validity of the
arbitration agreement are invariably regarded as jurisdictional
issues, since these issues pertain to the jurisdiction of the
tribunal. Admissibility issues however relate to procedural
requirements, such as a breach of pre-arbitration requirements,
for instance, a mandatory requirement for mediation before the
commencement of arbitration, or a challenge to a claim or a part
of the claim being either time-barred, or prohibited, until some
pre-condition has been fulfilled. Admissibility relates to the nature
of the claim or the circumstances connected therewith. An
admissibility issue is not a challenge to the jurisdiction of the
arbitrator to decide the claim. The issue of limitation, in essence,
goes to the maintainability or admissibility of the claim, which is
to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. For instance, a challenge
that a claim is time-barred, or prohibited until some pre- condition
is fulfilled, is a challenge to the admissibility of that claim, and
not a challenge to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide the
claim itself. Applying the "tribunal versus claim" test, a plea of
statutory time bar goes towards admissibility as it attacks the
claim. It makes no difference whether the applicable statute of
limitations is classified as substantive (extinguishing the
claim) or procedural (barring the remedy) in the private
international law sense. The issue of limitation which concerns
the "admissibility" of the claim, must be decided by the arbitral
tribunal either as a preliminary issue, or at the final stage after
evidence is led by the parties. It is only in the very limited
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
649
category of cases, where there is not even a vestige of doubt that
the claim is ex facie time-barred, or that the dispute is nonarbitrable, that the court may decline to make the reference.
However, if there is even the slightest doubt, the rule is to refer
the disputes to arbitration, otherwise it would encroach upon
what is essentially a matter to be determined by the tribunal.
[Paras 30-32, 34, 35 and 37][670-D-H; 671-A-B; 672-C-E;
675-A-B]
Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021) 2
SCC 1; Mayavati Trading Company Private Ltd. v.
Pradyut Dev Burman (2019) 8 SCC 714: [2019] 12
SCR 123; Duro Felguera SA v. Gangavaram Port Ltd.
(2017) 9 SCC 729] : [2017] 10 SCR 285 - relied on.
Swisbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd. & Ors. v.
Kingdom of Lesotho [2019] 1 SLR 263; BBA & Ors. v.
BAZ & Anr. [2020] SGCA 53 - referred to.
2.3 Applying the law to the facts of the present case, it is
clear that this is a case where the claims are ex facie time barred
by over 5 1⁄2 years, since Nortel did not take any action whatsoever
after the rejection of its claim by BSNL on 04.08.2014. The notice
of arbitration was invoked on 29.04.2020. There is not even an
averment either in the notice of arbitration, or the petition filed
under Section 11, or before this Court, of any intervening facts
which may have occurred, which would extend the period of
limitation falling within Sections 5 to 20 of the Limitation Act.
Unless, there is a pleaded case specifically adverting to the
applicable Section, and how it extends the limitation from the
date on which the cause of action originally arose, there can be
no basis to save the time of limitation. The present case is a case
of deadwood / no subsisting dispute since the cause of action
arose on 04.08.2014, when the claims made by Nortel were
rejected by BSNL. The Respondent has not stated any event
which would extend the period of limitation, which commenced
as per Article 55 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act (which
provides the limitation for cases pertaining to breach of contract)
immediately after the rejection of the Final Bill by making
deductions. The notice invoking arbitration is ex facie time barred,
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. v. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS
INDIA PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
and the disputes between the parties cannot be referred to
arbitration in the facts of this case. [Paras 38, 39][675-B-F;
676-B-C]
3. Conclusion
(i) The period of limitation for filing an application under
Section 11 would be governed by Article 137 of the First Schedule
of the Limitation Act, 1963. The period of limitation will begin to
run from the date when there is failure to appoint the arbitrator;
It has been suggested that the Parliament may consider amending
Section 11 of the 1996 Act to provide a period of limitation for
filing an application under this provision, which is in consonance
with the object of expeditious disposal of arbitration proceedings;
(ii) In rare and exceptional cases, where the claims are ex facie
time- barred, and it is manifest that there is no subsisting dispute,
the Court may refuse to make the reference.
The impugned orders dated 13.10.2020 and 14.01.2021
passed by the High Court are set aside. The application filed
under Section 11 by the Respondent before the High Court is
consequently dismissed. [Paras 40, 41][676-C-G]
S.S.Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1989) 4 SCC
582; Union of India & Ors. v. Har Dayal (2010) 1 SCC
394; CLP India Private Limited v. Gujarat Urja Vikas
Nigam limited & Anr. (2020) 5 SCC 185 - relied on.
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. M/s Navigant
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Decision of Supreme Court dtd.
02.03.2021 in C.A. No. 791 of 2021; State of Bihar &
Ors. v. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (2018) 9
SCC 472 : [2018] 7 SCR 1147;
Consolidated
Engineering v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation (2008) 7
SCC 169 : [2008] 5 SCR 1108; C. Budhraja v.
Chairman, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. (2008) 2
SCC 444 : [2008] 1 SCR 821; Geo Miller & Co. Pvt.
Ltd. v. Chairman, Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.
(2020) 14 SCC 643 : [2019] 11 SCR 1108; SBP & Co.
v. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 618 : [2005] 4
 Suppl. SCR 688; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 267 : [2008]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
651
13 SCR 638; Union of India & Ors. v. Master
Construction Co. (2011) 12 SCC 349: [2011] 5
SCR 853; Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam v.
Northern Coal Field Limited (2020) 2 SCC 455 -
referred to.
Leaf Biotech v. Municipal Corporation Nashik 2010
(6) Mh LJ 316; Deepdharshan Builders Pvt. Ltd. v.
Saroj (2019) 1 AIR Bom R 249; Prasar Bharti v. Maa
Communication 2010 (115) DRJ 438 (DB); Golden
Chariot v. Mukesh Panika 2018 SCC OnLine Del
10050 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2018] 7 SCR 1147
referred to
Para 7
[2008] 5 SCR 1108
referred to
Para 9
[2008] 1 SCR 821
referred to
Para 12
[2019] 11 SCR 1108
referred to
Para 16
[2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 688
referred to
Para 20
[2008] 13 SCR 638
referred to
Para 21
[2011] 5 SCR 853
referred to
Para 22
[2017] 10 SCR 285
relied on
Para 24
[2019] 12 SCR 123
relied on
Para 25
(2020) 2 SCC 455
referred to
Para 26
(2021) 2 SCC 1
relied on
Para 36
(1989) 4 SCC 582
relied on
Para 40
(2010) 1 SCC 394
relied on
Para 40
(2020) 5 SCC 185
relied on
Para 40
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 843844 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2020 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in petition under Section 11 of Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 AR No. 55 of 2020 Order dated 14.01.21 in
Review Petition RP No. 9 of 2021.
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. v. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS
INDIA PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
Arvind Datar, R. D. Agrawala, Sr. Advs., Pradeep Kumar Mathur,
Sameer Agrawal, Chiranjeev Johri, Advs. for the Appellants.
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Bharat Singh, Ashish Pandey, Rajesh
Kumar Singh, Amit Pawan, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The present Appeals raise two important issues for our
consideration : (i) the period of limitation for filing an application under
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act");
and (ii) whether the Court may refuse to make the reference under
Section 11 where the claims are ex facie time-barred?
2. (a) The factual matrix in which the present issues have arisen
for our consideration is the issuance of a tender notification by the
Appellant-Company [hereinafter referred to as "BSNL"] inviting bids
for planning, engineering, supply, insulation, testing and commissioning
of GSM based cellular mobile network in the southern region covering
the Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh Circles, and the
Chennai telephone district. In the tender process, the RespondentCompany [hereinafter referred to as "Nortel"] was awarded the
purchase order. On completion of the Works under the purchase order,
BSNL deducted / withheld an amount of Rs.99,70,93,031 towards
liquidated damages and other levies.
(b) Nortel vide communication dated 13.05.2014 raised a claim
for payment of the said amount.
BSNL vide letter dated 04.08.2014 rejected the claim of Nortel.
(c) After a period of over 5 1⁄2 years, Nortel vide letter dated
29.04.2020 invoked the arbitration clause, and requested for appointment
of an independent arbitrator, wherein it was contended that the dispute
of withholding the aforesaid amounts, would fall within the ambit of
arbitrable disputes under the agreement.
(d) BSNL vide reply dated 09.06.2020 contended that the request
for appointment of an arbitrator could not be entertained, since the case
had already been closed on 04.08.2014, and as per Section 43 of the
1996 Act, the notice invoking arbitration was time barred.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
653
(e) Nortel filed an application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act
before the Kerala High Court for appointment of an arbitrator. The High
Court vide Order dated 13.10.2020 referred the disputes to arbitration.
(f) BSNL filed a review petition before the High Court, which
was dismissed vide Order dated 14.01.2021.
(g) The present Civil Appeal has been filed by BSNL to challenge
the Orders dated 13.10.2020 and 14.01.2021 respectively.
(h) This Court appointed Mr. Arvind Datar, Senior Advocate as
Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on the legal issues which have arisen
for consideration.
3. We have heard Mr. R.D. Agrawala, Senior Advocate for the
Appellants, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate for the Respondent,
and the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Arvind Datar, Senior Advocate.
4. Submissions on behalf of BSNL
BSNL submitted that the cause of action for invoking arbitration
arose on 04.08.2014 when the claim made by Nortel was rejected by
making deductions from the Final Bill. It was contended that Nortel had
slept over its alleged rights for over 5 1⁄2 years, before issuing the notice
of arbitration on 29.04.2020. From 04.08.2014 till 29.04.2020, Nortel did
not take any action whatsoever. Consequently, the notice invoking
arbitration had become legally stale, non-arbitrable and unenforceable.
The High Court had erroneously proceeded on the premise of mere
existence of a valid arbitration agreement, without considering that such
an agreement was inextricably connected with the existence of a live
dispute.
Even though limitation was a mixed question of fact and law, and
is ordinarily to be decided by the arbitral tribunal, in cases where the
invocation of the arbitration agreement is ex facie time barred, the Court
must reject the request for appointment of an arbitrator. The limitation
for invoking arbitration, and seeking appointment of an arbitrator is at
par with a civil action, and would be covered by Article 137 of the Schedule
to the Limitation Act, 1963. An action taken by a claimant must necessarily
fall within the statutory period of 3 years from the date on which the
right to apply accrues.
Section 11(6A) uses the phrase "examination of the existence of
an arbitration agreement", which would imply that the power conferred
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. v. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS
INDIA PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
654
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
upon the Court is not a formal exercise, but requires a certain degree of
examination before making the reference.
5. Submissions on behalf of Nortel
It was submitted that the amendment to Section 11 by the
Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 provides for a limited
scope of enquiry at the pre-reference stage which is restricted only to
the "existence" of an arbitration agreement under sub-section (6A) of
Section 11. In view of the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz, the
objection with respect to the claims being allegedly time barred, could be
decided by the arbitral tribunal. The High Court rightly limited the enquiry
at the pre-reference stage to the "existence" of the arbitration agreement.
The distinction between the limitation for filing an application u/S.
11, and with respect to the underlying claims does not survive post the
2015 Amendment, since the role of the Court is only limited to examine
the existence of the arbitration agreement between the parties.
The starting point of limitation for initiating a proceeding under
Section 11 is the expiry of 30 days' from the date of issuing notice of
arbitration on 29.04.2020. The cause of action was, therefore, a continuing
one. The High Court had rightly held that the issue of limitation must be
decided by the arbitral tribunal.
6. Discussion on First issue
The 1996 Act has been framed for expeditious resolution of
disputes, and various provisions have been incorporated in the Act to
ensure that the arbitral proceedings are conducted in a time-bound manner.
Various time lines have been provided in the 1996 Act such as :
(i)
Section 8 provides that an application for reference of disputes
to arbitration, shall be filed not later than submitting the first
statement on the substance of the dispute;
(ii)
Section 9(2) provides that where a Court passes an order
for any interim measure of protection, the arbitral proceedings
shall be commenced within a period of 90 days' from the
date of such order;
(iii)
Section 13 provides that where a challenge is made against
an arbitrator, the same must be raised within 15 days' from
the constitution of the tribunal, or after becoming aware of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
655
any circumstances mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section
12;
(iv)
Section 16 (2) provides that a plea that the tribunal does not
have jurisdiction, shall be raised not later than the submission
of the statement of defence;
(v)
Section 34(3) provides a maximum period of 120 days' after
the receipt of the signed award, to file objections before the
Court1
7. The 1996 Act was amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation
(Amendment) Act, 2015 to incorporate further provisions for expeditious
disposal of arbitral proceedings : (i) Section 11 has been amended to
insert sub-section (13) which provides that an application made either
before the Supreme Court, or the High Court, or person or institution
designated by such Court, shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible,
and an endeavour shall be made to dispose of the petition within a period
of 60 days' from the date of service of the notice on the opposite party;
(ii) Section 29A mandates that the arbitral proceedings must be completed
within a period of 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings;
(iii) Section 34 was amended to insert sub-section (6) which provides
that an application under Section 34 shall be disposed of expeditiously
within a period of 1 year from the date on which the notice of filing
objections is served upon the other party.
Some of these provisions have been held to be mandatory, such
as Sections 8 and 34(3); while others like Section 34(6) have been held
to be directory2.
8. Contemporaneous with the 2015 amendments to the Arbitration
Act 1996, the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was enacted to provide for
speedy disposal of high value commercial disputes, which provided for
setting up Commercial Divisions or Commercial Appellate Division in
High Courts, and Commercial Courts at the district level.
Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act provides that an appeal
under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 shall be filed before the
Commercial Appellate Court or Commercial Appellate Division, as the
case may be within a period of 60 days' from the date of judgment.
1 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. M/s Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,
C.A. No. 791 / 2021 decided on 02.03.2021.
2 State of Bihar & Ors. v. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (2018) 9 SCC 472.
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. v. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS
INDIA PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
Section 14 further provides that the Commercial Appellate Court
or Commercial Appellate Division shall endeavour to decide the appeals
within a period of 6 months' from the date of filing of such appeal.
9. To decide the issue of limitation for filing an application under
Section 11, we must first examine whether the Arbitration Act, 1996
prescribes any period for the same.
Section 11 does not prescribe any time period for filing an
application under sub-section (6) for appointment of an arbitrator. Since
there is no provision in the 1996 Act specifying the period of limitation
for filing an application under Section 11, one would have to take recourse
to the Limitation Act, 1963, as per Section 43 of the Arbitration Act,
which provides that the Limitation Act shall apply to arbitrations, as it
applies to proceedings in Court.
"43. - Limitations
(1) The Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) shall apply to arbitrations,
as it applies to proceedings in Court."
In Consolidated Engineering v. Principal Secretary,
Irrigation,3 this Court held that :
"45. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Section
43 of the AC Act makes applicable the provisions of the Limitation
Act only to arbitrations, thereby expressing an intent to exclude
the application to any proceedings relating to arbitration in a court.
The contention of the appellant ignores and overlooks Section
29(2) of the Limitation Act and Section 43(1) of the AC Act. Subsection (1) of Section 43 of the Act provides that the Limitation
Act shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in
court. The purpose of Section 43 of the AC Act is not to make
the Limitation Act inapplicable to proceedings before court, but
on the other hand, make the Limitation Act applicable to
arbitrations. As already noticed, the Limitation Act applies only to
proceedings in court, and but for the express provision in Section
43, the Limitation Act would not have applied to arbitration, as
arbitrators are private tribunals and not courts. Section 43 of the
AC Act, apart from making the provisions of the Limitation Act,
1963 applicable to arbitrations, reiterates that the Limitation Act
3 (2008) 7 SCC 169.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
657
applies to proceedings in court. Therefore, the provisions of the
Limitation Act, 1963 apply to all proceedings under the AC Act,
both in court and in arbitration, except to the extent expressly
excluded by the provisions of the AC Act."
(emphasis supplied)
10. Since none of the Articles in the Schedule to the Limitation
Act, 1963 provide a time period for filing an application for appointment
of an arbitrator under Section 11, it would be covered by the residual
provision Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides :
THIRD DIVISION - APPLICATIONS

Description of application
Period
of
limitation
Time from which period
begins to run
137.
Any other application for which no
period
of
limitation
is
provided
elsewhere in this division
Three years
When the right to apply
accrues
11. It is now fairly well-settled that the limitation for filing an
application under Section 11 would arise upon the failure to make the
appointment of the arbitrator within a period of 30 days' from issuance
of the notice invoking arbitration. In other words, an application under
Section 11 can be filed only after a notice of arbitration in respect of the
particular claim(s) / dispute(s) to be referred to arbitration [as
contemplated by Section 21 of the Act] is made, and there is failure to
make the appointment.
12. The period of limitation for filing a petition seeking appointment
of an arbitrator/s cannot be confused or conflated with the period of
limitation applicable to the substantive claims made in the underlying
commercial contract. The period of limitation for such claims is prescribed
under various Articles of the Limitation Act, 1963. The limitation for
deciding the underlying substantive disputes is necessarily distinct from
that of filing an application for appointment of an arbitrator. This position
was recognized even under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940.
Reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in C. Budhraja
v. Chairman, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd.4 wherein it was held
that Section 37(3) of the 1940 Act provides that for the purpose of the
Limitation Act, an arbitration is deemed to have commenced when one
4 (2008) 2 SCC 444.
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. v. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS
INDIA PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
party to the arbitration agreement serves on the other party, a notice
requiring the appointment of an arbitrator. Paragraph 26 of this judgment
reads as follows :
"26. Section 37(3) of the Act provides that for the purpose of the
Limitation Act, an arbitration is deemed to have been commenced
when one party to the arbitration agreement serves on the other
party thereto, a notice requiring the appointment of an arbitrator.
Such a notice having been served on 4-6-1980, it has to be seen
whether the claims were in time as on that date. If the claims
were barred on 4-6-1980, it follows that the claims had to be
rejected by the arbitrator on the ground that the claims were barred
by limitation. The said period has nothing to do with the period of
limitation for filing a petition under Section 8(2) of the Act. Insofar
as a petition under Section 8(2) is concerned, the cause of action
would arise when the other party fails to comply with the notice
invoking arbitration. Therefore, the period of limitation for filing a
petition under Section 8(2) seeking appointment of an arbitrator
cannot be confused with the period of limitation for making a
claim. The decisions of this Court in Major (Retd.) Inder Singh
Rekhi v. DDA [(1988) 2 SCC 338] , Panchu Gopal Bose v. Board
of Trustees for Port of Calcutta [(1993) 4 SCC 338] and Utkal
Commercial Corpn. v. Central Coal Fields Ltd. [(1999) 2 SCC
571] also make this position clear."
13. Various High Courts have taken the view that Article 137 of
the Limitation Act would be applicable to an application under Section
11 of the Arbitration Act.
The question of the applicability of Article 137 to applications under
Section 11 of the 1996 Act came up for consideration before the Bombay
High Court in Leaf Biotech v. Municipal Corporation Nashik5 wherein
it was held that the period of limitation for an application u/S. 11 would
be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
Subsequently, in Deepdharshan Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Saroj6
the Bombay High Court framed the following issue :
"(ii) Whether Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act,
1963 would apply to the arbitration application filed under Section
11(6) of the Arbitration Act and if applies whether Section 5 of
5 2010 (6) Mh LJ 316.
6 (2019) 1 AIR Bom R 249.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
659
the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable to this arbitration
application and if Section 5 applies to this arbitration application,
whether the applicant has made out a sufficient cause for
condonation of delay in filing this arbitration application?"
The Bombay High Court held that :
"42. In my view, since the proceedings under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration Act are required to be filed before the High Court,
Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 would
apply to such application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration
Act. In my view, since Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation
Act, 1963 would apply to the arbitration application under Section
11(6) of the Arbitration Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
would also apply to the arbitration application filed under Section
11(6) of Arbitration Act
46. It is not in dispute that under Section 20 of the Arbitration
Act, 1940, an application was required for taking the arbitration
agreement on record and for appointment of an arbitrator in
accordance with the arbitration agreement before a Court. Since
the said proceedings under Section 20 were required to be filed
before an appropriate Court, the provisions of Article 137 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 were applicable to such proceedings filed
before such appropriate Court. In my view, since the proceedings
under Section 11(6) or Section 11(9) of the Arbitration Act for
seeking appointment of arbitral tribunal are also now required to
be filed before the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as
the case may be. Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation
Act, 1963 would apply. It is not in dispute that no other Article of
Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for any other period
of limitation for filing an arbitration application filed under Section
11(6) or Section 11(9) of the Arbitration Act respectively.
47. It is not in dispute that Article 137 of the Schedule to the
Limitation Act, 1963, such application has to be filed within three
years from the date when the right to apply accrues. In my view,
under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, application for
appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) or Section 11(9)
of the Arbitration Act before the High Court or the Hon'ble
Supreme Court would apply from the date when a notice invoking
an arbitration agreement is received by other side and other side
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. v. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS
INDIA PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
refuses to the name suggested by the opponent or refusing to
suggest any other name in accordance with the provisions of
Section 11 or the agreed procedure prescribed in the arbitration
agreement within the time contemplated therein or specifically
refuses to appoint any arbitrator in the event of such other party
being an appointing authority.
48. In my view, the limitation prescribed under Article 137 of the
Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 which applies to an application
under Section 11(6) or Section 11(9) of the Arbitration Act filed
before the High Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot
be mixed up with the period of limitation applicable to the claims
prescribed in various other Articles of the Schedule to the Limitation
Act, 1963. Both these periods of limitation i.e. one applicable to
the claims being made and another being applicable to the
application under Section 11(6) or Section 11(9) of the Arbitration
Act to which Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act,
1963 applies, are two different periods of limitation and cannot be
made applicable to each other."
The special leave petition (SLP (C) No. 305 / 2019) against the
said Judgment was dismissed vide Order dated 16.02.2019.
14. Other decisions of High Courts on the applicability of Article
137 are Prasar Bharti v. Maa Communication7 and Golden Chariot
v. Mukesh Panika8 passed by the Delhi High Court. The SLP filed in
the case of Golden Chariot was dismissed vide Order dated 31.01.2019
in SLP(C) No. 3658 / 2019.
15. The reasoning in all these judgments seems to be that since an
application under Section 11 is to be filed in a court of law, and since no
specific Article of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies, the residual Article
would become applicable. The effect being that the period of limitation
to file an application under Section 11 is 3 years' from the date of refusal
to appoint the arbitrator, or on expiry of 30 days', whichever is earlier.
16. In Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, Rajasthan
Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.,9 a three-judge bench held that on a reading
of sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 43 of the 1996 Act, the provisions
of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable to the Arbitration Act.
7 2010 (115) DRJ 438 (DB).
8 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10050, SLP (C) No. 40627 / 2018 against this decision was
dismissed on 31.01.2019.
9 (2020) 14 SCC 643, 649.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
661
Paragraph 14 of this judgment reads as :
"14. Sections 43(1) and (3) of the 1996 Act are in pari materia
with Sections 37(1) and (4) of the 1940 Act. It is well-settled that
by virtue of Article 137 of the First Schedule to the Limitation
Act, 1963 the limitation period for reference of a dispute to
arbitration or for seeking appointment of an arbitrator before a
court under the 1940 Act (see State of Orissa v. Damodar Das
[State of Orissa v. Damodar Das, (1996) 2 SCC 216] ) as well as
the 1996 Act (see Grasim Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala [Grasim
Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2018) 14 SCC 265 : (2018) 4
SCC (Civ) 612] ) is three years from the date on which the cause
of action or the claim which is sought to be arbitrated first arises."
17. Given the vacuum in the law to provide a period of limitation
under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation 1996, the Courts
have taken recourse to the position that the limitation period would be
governed by Article 137, which provides a period of 3 years from the
date when the right to apply accrues. However, this is an unduly long
period for filing an application u/S. 11, since it would defeat the very
object of the Act, which provides for expeditious resolution of commercial
disputes within a time bound period. The 1996 Act has been amended
twice over in 2015 and 2019, to provide for further time limits to ensure
that the arbitration proceedings are conducted and concluded
expeditiously. Section 29A mandates that the arbitral tribunal will conclude
the proceedings within a period of 18 months.