1.

The scope of enquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
1.1. There is No Dispute Subject To Arbitration-
1.1.1. As arbitration is a making of contract, the extend of jurisdiction of a court or
tribunal can go only as far as it is agreed by the parties to the agreement. 1 In
the contract vide dated-- the parties agreed to arbitrate only for the matters in
difference or dispute between the parties, for the performance of sell. The
intention of the parties is construed by the language that is employed by the
parties in the Contract.2
1.1.2. An agreement is supposed to be drafted careful3, which should reflect the
intentions of the parties to the agreement. 4 The contract should be interpreted
by the individual terms that are employed therein, but as an agreement as
whole.5
1.1.3. The dispute between d and bechara is not dispute between the parties, because
acquisition of land it was not sole responsibility of dynamo, while dynamo
and bechra are, together to be held responsible as “First Party”
The arrangement made between dynamo and bechara was for their convienance and not to make
them legally responsible to each other.

1.2. They aren’t ‘parties’-

1.2.1. To determine the issue that whether the Parties to a suit were a parties to the
contract, for the purpose of arbitration clause or not is well within the
jurisdiction of a Court as stated in Anderson Wright Limited v. Moran and
Company6.
1.2.2. In the case of Sumitomo Corporation v. CDC Financial Services (Mauritius)
Ltd7, the Supreme Court declined to refer the matter to arbitration for the very
reason that the disputes provided in the petition did not come within the scope
of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties. It was
observed by the Hon’ble Court that the term 'party' indicates 'the party to the
judicial proceeding’ they should be different parties to the agreement of
arbitration.
1.2.3. It was emphasized also in Taunton-Collins v. Cromie and Anr. 8that the in a
suit, parties to the contract should be parties to not only the suit but also the
cause of action, without any specific provision by law, cannot be bifurcated
permitting such bifurcation or splitting of cause of action9.

1
Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd ed, Kluwer Law International, 2014), 1060.
2
VK Holdings(HK) Ltd v Panasonic Eco Solutions(Hong Kong) Company Ltd HCCT 19/2014, [25].
3
Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd. (2007) 7 SCC 125.
4
Trust Risk Group SpA v Amtrust Europe Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 437, [48].
5
Austin J in ACD Tridon Inc v Tridon Australia Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 896, [119]–[120].
6
Anderson Wright Limited v. Moran and Company , 1955 SCR 862.
7
Sumitomo Corporation v. CDC Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd ,(2008) 4 SCC 91.
8
1964 1 Weekly Law Reports 633.
9
Turnock v. Sartoris, 1955 SCR 862.
The arrangement made between dynamo and bechara was for their convienance and not to make
them legally responsible to each other. Together were they forming a party, this bifurcated or
splitting up between d and b cannot be allowed.
1.3. The dispute is not arbitrable
1.3.1. For the court to refer the matter to for arbitration, it shall first be seen that the
dispute is arbitrable or not.10
1.3.2. D and b collectively agreed to acquire the subjected land. For further
convinence, dynamo was asked to acquire the land. This does not forbid
bechara from his contractral responsibility.
1.3.3. United Insurance Company Ltd. v. Hyundai Engineering and Construction
Company Ltd., the arbitration clause which provided that no dispute shall be
arbitrable where the insurance company has no accepted its liability. The
Court held that the matter in hand is not arbitrable as wasn’t, according to the
terms of arbitration clause, a dispute.
1.3.4. An expired contract, by its own terms, has released its parties from his
contractual obligations, except for obligations which is already fixed under the
agreement yet, is unsatisfied.11 After expiration, to protect the right to bargain,
the terms and conditions of agreement can no longer be enforced by virtue of
the contract.12
1.3.5. It was held that "validity" of an arbitration agreement is difference from its
"existence".13 The court for dealing in this aspect provided, the word
"existence" would include time barred, weeding-out clauses in agreements
that indicate that the subject-matter is incapable of arbitration.14
2. The Arbitration Clause Has Expired By Efflux Of Time:
2.1. Even if there exists a claim, it is barred by limitation. In Garware Wall Ropes Ltd.
v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd. 15, the Court observed that an
arbitration clause within an agreement does exist independently.16
2.2. In Prasar Bharti v. Maa Communication 17, it was held that although, Under
Section 11(4)(a), limitation shall start from expiry of 30 days yet the petition even
within limitation, was dismissed because the claim sought to be resuscitated was long
dead.18
2.3. Inder Singh Rekhi v. DDA19 held, limitation period applicable under Section 11 to
a petition is although a good law, yet even if the petition under Section 11 is found to

10
National Seeds Corporation Limited v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr. (2012) 2 SCC 506.
11
Office and Professional Employees Ins. Trust Fund v. Laborers Funds Administrative Office of Northern
California, Inc. 783 F.2d 919.
12
922 (CA9 1986).
13
246th Law Commission Report.
14
Vidya Drolia and Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation
15
Civil Appeal No. 3631 of 2019 arising out of SLP(C) No. 9213 of 2018.
16
Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Machado Brothers and others (2004)11 SCC 168.
17
AIR 2011 (Delhi) 26.
18
 Akrata Shipping S . A . vs . Pipavav Defense and Offshore Engineering Company Limited and Ors.,
MANU/GJ/1597/2017. 
19
Inder Singh Rekhi v. DDA (1988) 2 SCC 338.
 be in time, it may still be dismissed if claim it sought to resuscitated is found to be
long dead.20
2.4. In Joginder Singh And Co. V Union Of India21, the Court dismissed application
filed by appellant for appointment of Arbitrator for resolving dispute. It was held
that,the application was dismissed on ground that claim made by appellant, post
expiry of agreed period after termination of contract.
2.5. Rajesh Kumar Garg v. MCD22was held that the cause of action under Section 11
for the application is when the claim is accrued and the applicant had slept over his
rights. The claim was said to be hopelessly barred by limitation.23
Hence, in the present case, since the application is not maintainable itself, the question of
whether it is barred by limitation or not shouldn’t arise. Also, the contension that is
sought to be resuscitated is long dead, hence application may be dismissed.

20
Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Machado Brothers and others (2004)11 SCC 168.
21
Joginder Singh And Co. V Union Of India, 2016.
22
Rajesh Kumar Garg v. MCD ,149 (2008) DLT 343.
23
Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Another v. Praveen Kumar Singh (2006)3 SCC 312, Imax Corporation v. E-City
Entertainment (India) Private Limited, (2017)5 SCC 331.