arbitration proceedings and therefore, the arbitration proceedings initiated by the appellant soon after the dismissal of such suit filed by the first respondent is maintainable and the period during which the suit was pending can be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation. Even though the learned arbitrator has rightly considered this aspect, the learned First Additional District Judge, Salem has erroneously rendered a finding that the claim petition is not maintainable and therefore set aside the well considered award passed by the arbitrator. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant, as per the agreement entered into with the first respondent on 01.08.2004, is entitled to recover the outstanding amount within a period of three years from the date of last instalment payable by the first respondent. In the present case, as per the agreement dated 01.08.2004, the last instalment is payable on 01.07.2007. The appellant has, within a period of three years, appointed the named arbitrator by making a reference for arbitration on 28.06.2010, on which date, summons were issued by the arbitrator to the respondents for the hearing on 09.08.2010. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, within three years from the last date of instalment i.e., 01.07.2007, on 28.06.2010, the arbitration proceedings were initiated by the appellant and therefore, the claim petition is maintainable. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Section 21 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which categorically indicate that “unless and otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent.” As per Section 21 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the arbitral proceedings were initiated and commenced by the appellant on 28.06.2010, on which date, the learned Arbitrator had issued summons to the respondents. Therefore, the date of reference made on 28.06.2010 to the learned arbitrator has to be construed as the date of commencement of the arbitration proceedings as per Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and consequently the claim petition filed by the appellant is maintainable. The learned counsel for the appellant also invited the attention of this Court to clause 14 of the hire purchase agreement wherein the name of the arbitrator, in case of reference of any dispute, is clearly indicated. The appellant made reference to the very same arbitrator whose name was prominently mentioned in clause 14 of the hire purchase agreement dated 01.08.2004. The court below, without considering the aforesaid aspects has erroneously set aside the award passed by the learned arbitrator and prayed for allowing this appeal.
