LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-m-s-b-b-m-enterprises-20260409/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

State of West Bengal & Ors. vs M/s B.B.M. Enterprises

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
9 April 2026
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 4320 of 2026
Result
Allowed
Bench
Sanjay Kumar, K. Vinod Chandran
Citation
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 154 : 2026 INSC 358
Acts & Sections
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Limitation Act, 1963
Supreme Court Reports [2026] 5 S.C.R. 154 : 2026 INSC 358
Issue for consideration
Whether a notice seeking commencement of arbitration, issued on 02.06.2022, could set in motion the process of resolution of a dispute regarding a work completed as early as on 30.07.2000.
Headnote

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.42, 43 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 18 – Work completed in the year 2000 – Notice seeking commencement of arbitration issued after 21 years in 2022 – By way of the impugned judgment, Arbitrator appointed by High Court – Sustainability:

Held: Unsustainable – Arbitration though is an alternate dispute resolution system, which has to be encouraged, it cannot deviate from the fundamental principle that law favours the diligent and not the indolent – For recovery of amounts, as in this case, the limitation is three years as provided in Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – The commencement of arbitration proceedings as per sub-section (2) of s.43 being the date referred in s.21, which is the date on which a request for initiation of arbitration is received by the respondent, the claim itself was hopelessly time barred, the notice having been issued after 21 years – Despite the work having concluded on 30.07.2000, the petitioner did not attempt to raise a bill or initiate the arbitration proceedings till 2022, when a notice requiring commencement of arbitration proceedings was first issued – Appellant slept over its claim for 21 years before the notice seeking arbitration was issued in 2022; an ex-facie dead claim – High Court erred insofar as finding failure on the part of the Engineer-in-Charge to determine the final amount payable, having extended the limitation – If there was such a failure on the part of the Engineer-in-Charge, it was for the contractor to have initiated arbitration then and there – Neither was notice issued for arbitration nor was a final bill raised or a request made to determine the total amount payable – Order initiating arbitration set aside. [Paras 5, 6]

Keywords: Claim ex-facie time barred · Claim hopelessly time barred · Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 · Limitation for recovery of amounts · Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 · Law favours the diligent · Ex-facie dead claim · Notice seeking commencement of arbitration issued after 21 years

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Order 1. The neat question arising in the above case is as to whether a notice seeking commencement of arbitration, issued on 02.06.2022, could set in motion the process of resolution of a dispute regarding a work completed as early as on 30.07.2000. The High Court dealing with the application under Section 11 found from the agreement that there is an ambiguity in Clause 7 which requires the final bill to be submitted by the contractor within one month from the date fixed for completion of work dehors which the Engineer-in-Charge is competent to issue a certificate of measurement and the tota
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →