High Court-Telangana

In a commercial dispute, mere failure to pay may not give rise to a cause of action | The cause of action for reference to arbitration arises upon failure to respond asserted claim of a party | Mere negotiations will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation – Triveni Constructions Vs. Military Engineer Services – Telangana High Court

In this important judgment, Hon’ble Telangana High Court has held that:
(i) It is settled law that in a commercial dispute, mere failure to pay may not give rise to a cause of action. Once the applicant has asserted his claim and the respondent fails to respond to such claim, such failure will be treated as a denial of the applicant’s claim giving rise to a dispute, and thus it is the cause of action for reference to arbitration.
(ii) Mere negotiations will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation.
(iii) The limitation period of three years for filing such application would commence from the date when the cause of action arose. Since there is no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 specifying the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11, one would have to take recourse to the Limitation Act, 1963.
(iv) Since none of the Articles in Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provide a time period for filing an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11, it would be covered by the residual provision under Article 137 of the Limitation Act which provides that the period of limitation is three years for any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the division.
(v) The time limit starts from the period when the right to apply accrues.

In a commercial dispute, mere failure to pay may not give rise to a cause of action | The cause of action for reference to arbitration arises upon failure to respond asserted claim of a party | Mere negotiations will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation – Triveni Constructions Vs. Military Engineer Services – Telangana High Court Read Post »

Arbitrary Tribunal is having power to decide the dispute of forgery and fabricated, the scope of the Section 11 of the Arbitration Act is very limited and the Court is not having power to decide the aspect of forgery – Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SGE Education Pvt. Ltd. – Telangana High Court

In Section 11 application, Hon’ble High Court held that the respondent disputing that the Agreement as forged and fabricated document. The genuinity of Agreement dated 14.10.2017 and amounts claimed by the applicant and denial of such claim by the respondents are disputed facts and the same have to be resolved by the Arbitral Tribunal by taking into consideration of the evidence which is going to be adduced by the respective parties and this Court is not having power, authority or jurisdiction to decide the said aspects under Section 11 of the Act.

Arbitrary Tribunal is having power to decide the dispute of forgery and fabricated, the scope of the Section 11 of the Arbitration Act is very limited and the Court is not having power to decide the aspect of forgery – Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SGE Education Pvt. Ltd. – Telangana High Court Read Post »

Issue of Doctrine of Estoppel and application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed subsequent to termination of arbitration proceedings – Dakshin Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Parikshit Shah and another – Telangana High Court

Hon’ble High Corut held that in the absence of essential factors giving rise to estoppel having been fulfilled, in our considered opinion, the doctrine of estoppel has no application to the facts of the case. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant was entitled to take a stand that the dispute is arbitrable by filing an application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act, as such a plea became available to him due to subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited (supra).

Issue of Doctrine of Estoppel and application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed subsequent to termination of arbitration proceedings – Dakshin Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Parikshit Shah and another – Telangana High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top