The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bizibi Infotech Pvt Ltd. (BIPL) vs HCL Infosystem Ltd. consisting of Justice Prateek Jalan observed that Court at the referral stage can interfere only when the arbitral claims are ex facie time-barred and dead, or there is no subsisting dispute.
Facts
The present petition u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) was filed by the petitioner (“Bizibi”) seeking appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between it and the respondent (“HCL”), arising out of an agreement between them entitled “Call Centre Consultancy Agreement” (“the Consultancy Agreement”). Bizibi averred that, under the Consultancy Agreement, it paid a sum of ₹30,55,000/- to HCL. It referred to further correspondence between the parties and alleged that the conduct of HCL was vitiated by fraud.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that claims raised by Bizibi are hopelessly barred by limitation.
Respondent: It was contended that Bizibi had suffered as a result of HCL’s alleged fraud, and it would be inequitable to deny Bizibi the opportunity to have its claims adjudicated by an arbitral tribunal, as contemplated under the Consultancy Agreement.
Observations of the Court
Examining the scope of limitation in a petition u/s 11 of the Act, the Bench relied on a plethora of judgments and reiterated that:
“Limitation law is procedural and normally disputes, being factual, would be for the arbitrator to decide guided by the facts found and the law applicable. The court at the referral stage can interfere only when it is manifest that the claims are ex facie time-barred and dead, or there is no subsisting dispute... It is only in the very limited 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 non-arbitrable, that the court may decline to make the reference.”
It noted that in the instant case Bizibi’s averments fell within the narrow category of cases in which the Court ought to decline reference to arbitration since they were not claims under the Consultancy Agreement at all, and in any event, ex facie barred by limitation. So, all the claims referred to in the notice, and in the petition, were also ex facie barred by limitation.
Judgment
The Court concluded that Bizibi failed to make out a case for appointment of an arbitrator u/s 11 of the Act and dismissed the petition with costs assessed at ₹20,000/-.
Case: Bizibi Infotech Pvt Ltd. (BIPL) vs HCL Infosystem Ltd.
Citation: ARB.P. 675/2017
Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan
Decided on: 6th September 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
