Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Monday, 03 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2021-03-15 allowed

SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD vs M/S B. RAMACHANDRAIAH & SONS

Bench: 2 — R.F. Nariman, B.R. Gavai

In Brief

The Supreme Court held that an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator is barred by limitation when filed beyond three years from the date the cause of action arises—namely, when the other party fails to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days of notice invoking arbitration. The Court rejected the High Court's view that limitation begins afresh from each rejection letter. The Court also held that where claims are manifestly ex facie time-barred on the merits (substantive claims under the underlying contract), courts may refuse the reference despite the narrow scope of Section 11(6A). Here, final payment was received in March 2003, the demand was made in September 2003, and formally rejected in February 2010; by the time the Section 11 application was filed in November 2013, both the procedural and substantive claims were time-barred.

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

Arbitration Limitation Law Procedure and Evidence

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