This question paper contains 6 printed pages.

7887 Your Roll No . ................................. .

LL.B. I Ill Term ES

Paper LB-302- LIMITATION. AND ARBITRATION

Time : 3 hours Maximum Marks : 100

(Write your Roll No. on the top immediately
on receipt of this question paper.)

Nom:- Answers may be ·written either in English or in

Hindi; but the same medium should be used
throughout the paper.

r~:-:- ffT J{~~q" q;r ~ at-u~ GfT r~ fciR:ft ~

'1ffFIT "ff ~ #rfcFi:r rrsft ~ cnr 111&171 7l1li 67
~;rf~/

Attempt five questions in all, selecting at least two ques-

tions from each Part. All questions carry equal marks.

~ rm:r m it; ~ ~ ~ S1f7T -q ~ ~ JfH q;m

31f;rqpf II rrsft m it; ~ ~ ~I

1. Attempt any two of the following:-

(a) Limitation bars only remedy but does not destroy

the right itself. Explain and elucidate if there is
any exception to it.

P. T. 0.
7887 2

(b) Effect of fraud and mistake on the Law of

Limitation.

(c) Explain the bar of limitation contained in section

3 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

f.t""ifdfuld -q ~ ~ c:) ~am:~:

(a) qfhnJtl ~ ~ ct1T ~ qmtt ~ lR ~
3lff.ICiiR q;) ~ -;fflf W ~ I ~ ~ ~
31t(CflG ~ ciT ~ ~. 'd'~ ~lfll ~ I

(b) qf{{:ftql fclf~ lR cmG 'd'~ ~ CliT lf'li1Cf I

(c) qfhnJtl 3lf~. 1963 Clft ~ 3 1l attlf&a

20

2. Although no special indulgence can be shown to the

Government which · in similar circumstances, is not
shown to the individual suitor one cannot but take
practical view of the working of the Government
without being unduly indulgent to the slow motion of
its wheels. Explain the above statement with respect to
condonation of delay on sufficient cause under Section
5 ofthe Limitation Act of 1963.

"lfWl mchR q;) fcmtf ~. ~ crnft cx:ffili q;) ;fflf

~ \lffiiT t -;fflf ~ \iiT ~ l ~ mchR ~
Cf11tfoqJ(14 ~ qj{ -q ~ ~ qft ~. 11ftT ~ >rftr
aw:rf?:Tcn 3GR ~ W-rr CX4Jq6JRCf1 <tf~cti'lo1 3l1FIT ~
~ I qf{tflql 3lf~, 1963 e@" ~ 5 ~ a:Rflhr ~
 3 7887

cmur 'Q'{ ~ c6t ~ ~ ~ 1i ~ Cli?.R c6t '&fl"@:lT

~I 20

3. (a) Discuss the true scope of the expression 'time

requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree,
sentence or order appealed from' in Section
12(2) of the Limitation Act of 1963.
qfh:i1'il an~, 1963 c6t ~ 12(2) 1i ·~.
~sl~:tl m: ~. mrn 3ltfffi qft ~ ~. qft.
srfdfclN 'SI'Jl{f cn8 ·~ aWre.rn '{{1F.T' alf~ c6t
~ 4R&Jifta CliT fct~~"t ~ I 10

(b) Discuss the legal disabilities covered under the

law of limitation. Whether Section 8 constitutes
an exception to the rule of disabilities?
4Rtn'il fcrf~ ~ ~ fliilf~d fcrf~ R:WUim q;r
fct~~"t ~I 10

4. (a) Describe the distinctions between Section 18 and

Section 19 of the Limitation Act of 1963. What is
the effect of ackowledgement.under Section 19 if
it is made after the expiry of the period of limi-
tation?
qf{ftlJil alf~. 1963 qft ~ 18 am: ~ 19 ~
~· ~~ CliT crcrf:f ~ I ~ mfl<f ~
qf{fllql 3lCTf~ qft ~ ~ qre: -ey ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 19 ~ ~ cp;rr qf{uuq 'ffirr ~? 10

P.T.O.
7887 4

(b) What is the distinction between Article 113 and

Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act
of1963?
qrh:ftq• 31f~. 1963 cn1 at:J>{(iil ~ ~ 113
a1h 3t:J>~(!O 137 ~ ~ ~ ~ mm- t ? io

5. (a) What are the essential ingredients of the

Arbitration Agreement contained in Section 7 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
lli'Eli(OqlJ' am ~ 31f~. 1996 cnl mu 7 if
ar~r~a l1t'Ell{4q'q' q;m ~ atiiHllcti '4Zctii•• q:ljf

t? w
(b) Discuss the grounds and procedure to challenge
the appointment of Arbitrators.
lli'Ellt'!ll cn1 ~ c6t m~ fit a em- ~ ~ an~
O?.IT 'SffitiliT CliT fct~i4"1 ~I W

6. Discuss the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

'Bharat Aluminium Co. vs. Kaiser Aluminium
Technical Service, SLT (2012) 71 Vol VII' and explain
in what manner it has overri.Iled the judgement in
'Bhatia International vs. Bulk Trading SA, AIR 2002
sc 1432.
a-..:qoq- O<lllllclll ~ 'ilRd" t!:~"if''~Rllll CliPVft iiFffiT ~
t!:~Rllll lq:;flcticl ~ 'll:Ro~oito (2012) 11 m
VII if atff.TCnf~ fcrf~ CliT fc:l~iH cnlf\ll~ o?.IT M
~ ~ 'i11flllr ~"'2{:hHct iiFff1T ~ ~WI 'll:Ro'l{o
 5 7887

v:o~oamo 2002 ~omo 1432 -q R$r Ch1 ~ Ufo

~ ~ R:cJT t I 20

7. Elucidate the principles laid down by SC in SBP & Co.

v~. Patel Engineering Ltd., 2005 (8) SCC 618, for
deciding an issue regarding the nature of the function
of the Chief Justice or his designate ·under Section 11
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

llf~ a1h: ~ m~, 1996 Cli1 mu 11 ~

3FGlhr ~ '4i~'J[d' ~ ~ ~~ ~ CfiTliT ~
~ ~ ~ -q f<:hm fCfctiQcn Ch1 fqf.if~:qa ~ ~g;
SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. 2005 (8) SCC
618 -q a:c:aaq '41~1dl4 IDU 3lft:rcnf~ f.e•f:J"~il" cnr
fct:ti<ftCfi{Uj ~ I . 20

8. Attempt any two of the following:

(a) Validity of an award given by even number of

Arbitrators

(b) Competence of the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on

its jurisdiction

(c) Can an issue of winding up of a Company be

referred to Arbitral Tribunal?

f~'"'ifciiRsfd -q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f~f&l(:
(a) WiR ~ -q 'll~ w· fcF;m lim 3lf~ cn1
fcff~"'l'4dl

P.T.O.
7887 6

(b) lR~ m~ ett 3Ttf.ft ·an~CfiiR:ttl lR f.tw:f

0'1" cnB etl ~aF«TT .
(c) ~ fcnm ~ ~ qf{;gq1q01 ~ fctcllaCih CliT
lR~ 31f~ CliT f4~f~ltt ~ ~ ~ ~?

200