#limitation in arbitration

Bombay High Court dismisses a Section 34 challenge, reinforcing that courts cannot re-examine arbitral awards unless the arbitrator’s interpretation is patently illegal or arbitrary. The ruling underscores the narrow scope of judicial review, protecting finality in commercial disputes and limiting interference to violations of public policy or fundamental legal errors.

The Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their views when reviewing arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The judgment clarifies that limitation for challenging an award begins only upon a clear refusal of performance, reinforcing the narrow scope of judicial intervention in arbitration matters.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that when factual disputes exist over limitation periods in arbitration referrals, the issue must be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal, not the court during Section 11 appointment proceedings. This clarifies the limited scope of judicial review at the arbitrator appointment stage, reinforcing tribunal autonomy in contested factual matters.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a party may file a fresh Section 11 application for arbitration of damages claims not previously decided, even if an appeal against the set-aside award is pending. This clarifies that setting aside an award nullifies its binding effect, allowing parties to pursue unaddressed heads of claim without being barred by pendency of appellate proceedings. Practitioners and developers must now treat set-aside awards as legally vacated for unadjudicated relief.

MP High Court rules that objections regarding limitation and contractual bars (e.g., Clause 65 of GCC) must be adjudicated by the arbitrator, not dismissed at the appointment stage. The ruling reinforces that courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act cannot preemptively decide merits like limitation or extinguishment of claims, preserving the arbitrator’s jurisdiction over disputes.

Bombay High Court rules that courts must refrain from adjudicating limitation objections under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, leaving such disputes exclusively to arbitrators. This decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s precedent in SBI General Insurance v. Krish Spinning, emphasizing legislative intent to limit judicial interference in arbitration proceedings and expedite dispute resolution.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that failing to raise jurisdictional objections before the arbitrator or under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act precludes later challenges. The judgment reinforces the doctrine of waiver, impacting parties seeking to contest arbitration awards on procedural grounds.

MP High Court rules that when a court grants liberty to arbitrate while excluding the limitation period, objections on limitation must be decided by the arbitrator, not the court. This reinforces the kompetenz-kompetenz principle, shifting the burden of limitation disputes to arbitration proceedings where prior litigation excluded the relevant period.

Delhi High Court reinforces that arbitral awards based on a plausible contractual interpretation and unrebutted oral testimony cannot be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, absent patent illegality or perversity. The ruling clarifies the high threshold for judicial interference in arbitration awards, benefiting parties relying on contractual ambiguity defenses.

The J&K & Ladakh High Court ruled that courts cannot refuse arbitration referrals merely because claims appear time-barred. Only ex facie dead claims may be barred at the referral stage, while all other limitation issues must be decided by the arbitral tribunal. This reinforces the tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction over substantive disputes, including limitation defenses, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.