9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the respondent that application U/s 11 having been filed in the year 2009 is barred by law of limitation. Regarding reliance placed on the MOU - Held that:- Though there was reference to the said alleged MOU dated 14th July, 2003, in the said letter, the respondents unconditionally agreed to resolve all the disputes between the parties by referring the said disputes to arbitration - The respondent had agreed that the arbitrator be appointed from the Indian Council of Arbitration and had requested the applicants to suggest five names - The said letter clearly indicates that even otherwise, the parties have recorded arbitration agreement in terms of section 7(4)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996 - Shri. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and respondents by referring all the disputes between them to the arbitrator with technical background and having experience in design and constructions. The respondents agreed that the arbitrator be appointed from the Indian Council of Arbitration, Federation House, Tansen Marg, New Delhi 110 001. The respondents requested the applicants to suggest five names who are on the panel of the Indian Council of Arbitration Federation to enable the respondents to nominate to whom the arbitration can be referred to. In response to the said letter, the applicants by letter dated 18th August, 2006 suggested five names and requested the respondents to agree to one of the name. As the respondent did not give any response to the said letter the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arbitration agreement does not exist or is rescinded then the prayer for referring the dispute to the arbitrator will have to be rejected. 3. The next submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that both the parties had entered into MOU in the meeting held on 14th July, 2003 by which the applicants had confirmed that all the claims submitted by the applicants were withdrawn and in future also no such claim of any sort would be made by the applicants against the respondents. 4. Relying upon the said MOU it is submitted that there is total accord and satisfaction of the claims made by the applicants and thus there are no live claims which can be referred to arbitration. The learned counsel for the applicants disputes the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 is not before the court. In my view as the application under section 11 is not before the court, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to such application filed under section 11. In my view, thus there is no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that application under section 11 having been filed in the year 2009 is barred by law of limitation. 8. In so far as reliance placed on the MOU dated 14th July, 2003 by the learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, the execution of the said MOU is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the applicants. Be that as it may, perusal of the letter dated 12th July, 2006 addressed by the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
