Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Friday, 31 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2024-03-01 allowed

M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD vs M/S APTECH LTD

Bench: 3 — Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra

In Brief

A franchisee company in Afghanistan sought appointment of an arbitrator against an Indian franchisor over non-payment of amounts due from a training course conducted in Kabul in 2017. The franchisor objected on grounds that the claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963. The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for filing a Section 11(6) application is three years from when the other party fails to appoint an arbitrator after notice. The cause of action arises not on non-payment alone but when the claimant asserts a claim and the respondent denies it—here on 28 March 2018. The arbitration notice was validly issued within the three-year window. The Court appointed a former Supreme Court Judge as sole arbitrator, noting that claims are not ex facie time-barred.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Arbitration Limitation Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act International Commercial Arbitration Franchise Agreement Cause of Action Admissibility Time-barred Claims

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login