Delhi High Court recently delivered a judgment regarding limitations on petitions in Tirupati Constwell Private Limited v Delhi States Employees Federation CGHS Ltd (2025) arising from a petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The petitioner, Tirupati Constwell, sought the appointment of arbitrators to adjudicate disputes stemming from a construction contract executed in 2005.
The main issue before the court was whether the petition, filed in July 2024, was barred by limitation, since the notice invoking arbitration had been issued more than five years earlier, in February 2019. The petitioner was awarded a contract in 2005 by the Delhi State Employees Federation CGHS (respondent) for the construction of 131 dwelling units in a co-operative housing society in Dwarka, New Delhi.
As disputes arose regarding non-payment of substantial dues, allegedly claimed to be INR809 million (USD9.3 million), the petitioner initially sent a notice for conciliation in December 2018, followed by a formal notice invoking arbitration under clause 39.1 of the agreement on 22 February 2019.
The respondent replied on 16 March 2019, denying the arbitration clause and stating that the complete record had never been provided by the previous management committee to the respondent, hence, the respondent was not in possession of the original agreement.
After the respondent refused to participate in arbitration, the architect (one of the arbitrators) stepped in to mediate. However, mediation failed, and the architect eventually recused himself from the process on 24 August 2019, leaving it open for the petitioner to appoint an arbitrator. The petitioner approached the court for the appointment of arbitrators to resolve the dispute.
The petitioner argued that the limitation period under section 11 of the arbitration act should exclude the time between 27 March 2019 and 24 August 2019, during which the architect allegedly acted as a mediator, holding meetings and issuing notices for dispute resolution.
However, the court rejected this contention, finding no evidence of any request for mediation or bona fide negotiation efforts. It was found that there was no express or implied request by either party asking the architect to mediate.
Instead, all the documents and proceedings during this period consistently described the architect as acting in the capacity of an arbitrator and not a mediator, who later recused himself due to a challenge to his impartiality.
Relying on judgments in Geo Miller & Company v Chairman, Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam (2019) and SBI General Insurance v Krish Spinning (2024), the court held that suspension of limitation requires clear efforts at amicable resolution and a definitive “breaking point”, both of which were absent in the present dispute.
The court held that the limitation for filing a petition under section 11 of the arbitration act commences from the date of refusal to arbitrate. Since the respondent had unequivocally refused arbitration on 16 March 2019, the limitation began from that date and ran uninterrupted.
The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that informal mediation attempts by the architect could extend the limitation, finding them neither legally recognised nor mutually agreed on.
Relying on Arif Azim v Aptech (2024), the court reiterated that at the section 11 stage, it must examine whether the petition is within limitation and whether the claims are clearly deadwood. Finding the petition being time-barred, the court declined to consider the merits and dismissed the petition.
The dispute digest is compiled by Numen Law Offices, a multidisciplinary law firm based in New Delhi & Mumbai. The authors can be contacted at support@numenlaw.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.
