2006 (12) TMI 228 - SC - Companies Law

Arbitration - Limitation period for reference of claims, differences or disputes for arbitration - Held that - Appeal dismissed. Even if we take the last cut off date to be 19-3-2001 then too the last date for filing the complaint would be September, 2001. In fact, the complaint was filed in the month of September, 2003. Therefore, the complaint was hopelessly barred by time. In view of the admitted facts, the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal as affirmed by the learned Single Judge and further affirmed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court requires no interference by this Court.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court affirming the Arbitral Tribunal's decision on the objection of limitation raised by the respondent.
- Interpretation of the bye-laws of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited regarding the time limit for filing complaints arising from disputes.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two appeals with a common question of law. The appeals challenge the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal based on a limitation objection raised by the respondent. The appellant, a stock and share broker, claimed a due amount from the respondent, which was contested on the grounds of limitation. The Arbitral Tribunal, supported by the Single Judge and the Division Bench, ruled that the claim was time-barred as per the bye-laws of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited.

The appellant argued that the cause of action arose when a complaint was filed with the Economic Offences Wing, which was within the time limit. However, the respondent contended that the dispute had already arisen earlier based on communication regarding outstanding dues. The appellant's letters demanding payment indicated that the dispute was recognized as early as February 2001, with a final deadline set for March 2001. The complaint, filed in September 2003, was deemed time-barred according to the six-month limitation period specified in the bye-laws.

The judgment concluded that the Arbitral Tribunal's decision, upheld by the High Court, did not warrant interference. The appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limits for filing complaints under the exchange's bye-laws, highlighting the significance of recognizing the date of dispute initiation for determining the limitation period.