Whether the period spent in pursuing proceedings under the IBC is liable to be excluded while computing the limitation period for filing the application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? | Whether the principles contained in Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC will apply to an application under Section 11(6)? | Whether the benefit of Section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act is available in respect of an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act? – HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. Vs. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad – Supreme Court
In this landmark judgment, following issues are covered:
(i) Scope and applicability of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC to proceedings other than suits.
(ii) Whether the principles contained in Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC will apply to an application under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996.
(iii) Important aspect while applying the principles of Order 23 Rule 1 to applications under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996.
(iv) Withdrawing Section 11 application to file application under Section 9 of IBC, it would no longer be open to it to file a fresh application for appointment of arbitrator without having obtained the liberty of the court to file a fresh application at the time of the withdrawal.
(v) Whether the period spent in pursuing proceedings under the IBC is liable to be excluded while computing the limitation period for filing the application under Section 11(6)?
(vi) Ingredients need to be fulfilled for the applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act.
(vii) Conditions required to be fulfilled for seeking the benefit of exclusion under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act.
(viii) Key difference between sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
(ix) Interpretation of the expression “other cause of a like nature” used in Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
(x) A Section 11 petition is in the nature of an ‘application’ and cannot be considered to be a ‘suit’ for the purposes of the Limitation Act.
(xi) Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is not for the same relief as an application under Section 9 of the IBC.
(xii) Insolvency proceedings are fundamentally different from arbitration proceedings etc.
(xiii) Whether the benefit of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is available in respect of an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996?
(xiv) Whether it is permissible for the courts to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the absence of any application seeking such condonation?