Arbitration and Time Barred Claims

Arbitration and Time Barred Claims 

In the case of Smart Commodity Broker Pvt Ltd v. Beant Singh [2017] GCtR 3387 (Delhi) the petition filed by a person A under S.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed. It was held that when the view of the Arbitrator is one possible view in law then it cannot be interfered with in Section 34 objections. The party [A] which had filed the petition under S.34 had failed to produce evidence in respect of allegations made against B. It was also held that findings of facts by the Arbitrator, unless they are totally illegal or perverse, cannot be interfered under Section 34 of the Act.

It was pointed out that if the Bye-Law's provide a lesser limitation period than as provided under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, and which is a period of 3 years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, it is the larger period of limitation as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act which applies for seeking of reference of disputes to arbitration and not a lesser period as provided under the Bye-Laws. 

The genesis of this case was a dispute between B and A. B wanted refund of his money from A which A refused citing various reasons. While allowing the claim of B against A, following aspects were noticed : 

A could not any answer some of the questions put by the Court. 

Letter sent by A to B was found not sufficient to dispute the liability of A towards B.

Sending email to B which were denied by B. A failed to establish that email ID which "A" claimed was created by B was actually created by B. 

The argument that extension of time limit will be prospective was rejected and it was held that such amendment will be retrospectively applicable. 

The decision clarifies that if in a monetary dispute between A and B where B alleges that A had made any representation or written something earlier or if A attributes some act done by B, then A had to furnish proof that such content was actually written by B. If A is unable to establish legally the proof that B has written such content or done such act, then A cannot ward off A's monetary liability towards B.