Introduction
The case between Home and Soul Private Limited and T.V. Today Network Limited [W.P.(C) 14422/2024, CM APPL. 60450/2024 & CM APPL. 60451/2024] was recently heard by the Delhi High Court, addressing the issue that whether the ongoing arbitration should have addressed the question of "Limitation" — that is, whether the Petitioner’s claim was barred by the statute of Limitations — at the outset.
Background of the Case
The Petitioner, Home and Soul Private Limited (formerly known as Vertical Limits Infratech Pvt. Ltd.), and the Respondent, T.V. Today Network Limited (formerly Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.), entered into a "Barter Agreement" (the Agreement).
Under the terms of the Agreement, the Petitioner provided advertising space to the Respondent, with the understanding that compensation would be made in the form of either a property transfer or a cash payment. Although the formal term of the Agreement concluded in 2014, the parties continued their business relationship until 2016, during which time the Respondent continued to receive advertising services.
Thereafter, in 2021, Respondent expressed his dissatisfaction to the Petitioner, towards the fulfilment of obligations under the Agreement, leading to the present dispute.
To resolve the issue, both parties invoked arbitration proceedings as contemplated under the said agreement. During arbitration, the Respondent in his defence, asserted that the Petitioner's claims were time-barred under the applicable law of Limitation.
In 2024, the High Court instructed the Arbitrator to address the Limitation issue as a preliminary matter. However, the Arbitrator chose to defer consideration of this issue, opting instead to first review the evidence before making a ruling on the question of Limitation. The Petitioner contended that the Limitation issue was pivotal and should be resolved without delay, as it had the potential to result in the dismissal of the entire claim, effectively halting the arbitration proceedings. The Court was thus called upon to determine whether it should intervene to ensure that the Arbitrator adhered to its prior direction and prioritized the Limitation issue, as originally instructed.
PETITIONER ARGUMENTS – HOME AND SOUL PRIVATE LIMITED
The Petitioner contended that the Limitation issue could potentially nullify the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to hear the case, and therefore, it should be resolved as a preliminary matter. The Petitioner pointed out that in an earlier ruling, the High Court had instructed the Arbitrator to address the Limitation issue first. By deferring this matter, the Petitioner argued that the Arbitrator was failing to follow the Court’s clear directive.
RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS – T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED
The Respondent argued that determining whether the claim was time-barred involved a factual inquiry, including a detailed review of the parties' business interactions. They maintained that this was not merely a "legal" issue that could be resolved without examining the evidence.
The Respondent also stressed that the Arbitrator has the discretion to determine the order in which issues are addressed. They asserted that deferring the Limitation issue was entirely within the Arbitrator’s authority, especially given the complex factual context.
Delhi High Court Observations:
The Court held that, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2016, the Arbitrator has the authority to decide on jurisdictional issues, including Limitation, at any stage deemed appropriate. Section 16 of the Act grants the Arbitrator the power to address jurisdictional challenges and decide whether to resolve them immediately or defer them.
Citing previous case law, the Court emphasized that judicial intervention in arbitration is only justified in exceptional circumstances. Interfering with preliminary issues, especially at every step of the process, would undermine the efficiency that arbitration aims to achieve.
The Court further highlighted that the primary goal of arbitration is to streamline the resolution of disputes, minimizing both time and costs by allowing the proceedings to proceed without constant Court involvement.
The Court also noted that questions of Limitation often involve both legal and factual assessments. In this case, determining whether the claim was time-barred required considering when the dispute actually arose and the nature of the interactions between the parties from 2014 to 2016.
Given the complex factual context, the Court found that the Arbitrator’s decision to defer the Limitation issue until the evidence was reviewed was reasonable and appropriate.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Arbitrator’s decision to delay a ruling on the Limitation issue was legally sound. Since, the Petitioner could still challenge the Limitation question as part of the final award, there was no need for immediate judicial intervention.
Judgement
The High Court rejected the Petitioner’s request for intervention and declined to direct the Arbitrator to address the Limitation issue at the outset.
The Court advised the parties to allow the arbitration process to continue, emphasizing that any concerns regarding the Limitation issue or other matters could be raised once the Arbitrator issues the final award. This decision reaffirms the Arbitrator’s authority to manage the procedural aspects of the case, reinforcing the principle of minimal judicial interference during ongoing arbitration.
Source
