Arbitration Under The Clock: Navigating Limitation Periods In Dispute Resolution
- IJLLR Journal
- Nov 12, 2025
- 2 min read
Mayank Pratap, Assistant Professor, Law School BHU
ABSTRACT
The interplay between the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, presents a labyrinth of interpretive challenges that profoundly influence the efficacy of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in India. At its core, the Limitation Act imposes rigid temporal boundaries on the initiation of legal claims, extinguishing remedies once prescribed periods elapse. Section 43(1) of the Arbitration Act explicitly extends this framework to arbitral processes, mandating its application "as it applies to proceedings in any court," thereby aligning arbitration's foundational stages—akin to the commencement of a civil suit—with statutory time constraints.
This scholarly inquiry delves into judicial exegesis of pivotal provisions, including Sections 11(6) and 43 of the Arbitration Act alongside Section 137 of the Limitation Act, to delineate the contours of limitation's enforceability during the referral phase. By scrutinizing landmark precedents, the analysis probes whether these temporal safeguards permeate the entire arbitral lifecycle or remain confined to preliminary referral maneuvers. Central to this exploration is the perennial debate: does the Limitation Act's prescriptive rigor bind arbitrations with the same inexorability as it does judicial forums, or does arbitration's ethos of expeditious informality warrant doctrinal flexibility?
The discourse further illuminates ancillary doctrines—such as the accrual of causes of action, mechanisms for condonation of delay, and exclusions from computation periods—unraveling their practical ramifications in fostering equitable resolutions. Through a dual lens of doctrinal evolution and jurisprudential praxis, this paper illuminates emergent paradigms in legal adjudication, advocating for a harmonized regime that balances procedural certainty with the Arbitration Act's pro-efficiency mandate. Ultimately, it posits pathways for legislative refinement, ensuring arbitration's role as a robust pillar of justice remains unencumbered by antiquated temporal fetters.
