IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Arbitration Application No. 23 of 2010 M/s Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. ……… Applicant. Versus M/s Praj Industries Ltd. ……… Respondent. & Arbitration Application No. 24 of 2010 M/s Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. ……… Applicant. Versus M/s Praj Industries Ltd. ……… Respondent. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the respondent. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the claim, as put forward, is barred by limitation. Whether or not the claim put forward is barred by limitation, is to be adjudicated and the same can only be adjudicated by the arbitrator to be appointed. It is not the contention of the respondent that the Application made under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is barred by limitation. 2. That being the situation, there is no other option, but to exercise jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Respondent has filed an affidavit and, thereby, has furnished names of three Hon’ble Retired Judges, who may be appointed as Arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes inter se the parties. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant accepts the first name, so suggested. Accordingly, Hon’ble Justice V.K. Gupta, retired Chief Justice of this Court, is appointed as Arbitrator. 3. The Applications are, accordingly, disposed of. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 15.07.2011 G