State of West Bengal v. M/S B.B.M. Enterprises 2026 INSC 358 - Arbitration Act - Limitation - Recovery Of Amount
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 21,42,43 ; Limitation Act 1961 - Article 18 - Arbitration though an alternate dispute resolution system, cannot deviate from the fundamental principle that law favours the diligent and not the indolent. Section 42 applies the Limitation Act to arbitrations as it is applied to proceedings in Court. Hence, for recovery of amounts, the limitation is three years as provided in Article 18 of the Limitation Act. The commencement of arbitration proceedings as per sub-section (2) of Section 43 is the date referred in Section 21, which is the date on which a request for initiation of arbitration is received by the respondent. (Para 6)
Case Info
Case Information
Case name and neutral citation:State of West Bengal & Ors. v. M/S B.B.M. Enterprises, 2026 INSC 358 (Civil Appeal No. 4320 of 2026)
Coram:Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment date:09 April 2026, New Delhi
Case laws and citations referred
- Vishram Varu and Company v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 588
- Arif Azim Company Limited v. Aptech Limited, (2024) 5 SCC 313
- Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. ASAP Fluids Private Limited and Another, (2025) 1 SCC 502
- Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1
- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. Nortel Networks India Private Limited, (2021) 5 SCC 738
- Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899, In Re, (2024) 6 SCC 1
Statutes / laws referred
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Section 11 and Section 11(6)
- Section 21
- Section 42 (referred to in text, though the correct provision for limitation in arbitrations is Section 43)
- Limitation Act, 1963
- Article 18 (for recovery of amounts)
- Article 137 (for Section 11(6) applications, as discussed via precedents)
Brief summary (three sentences)
The Supreme Court considered whether a notice invoking arbitration issued on 02.06.2022 could validly commence arbitration in respect of work completed on 30.07.2000, where no steps were taken for over two decades. Applying the Limitation Act to arbitration claims, the Court held that the contractor’s money claim was ex facie and hopelessly time-barred, and that the High Court erred in treating the Engineer‑in‑Charge’s failure to issue a final measurement certificate as extending limitation. The order appointing an arbitrator was therefore set aside and the appeal by the State of West Bengal was allowed.