Alan Mervyn Arthur Stephenson vs J. Xavier Jayarajan

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2025

Alan Mervyn Arthur Stephenson …Petitioner Versus

J. Xavier Jayarajan …Respondent

JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner who is residing in United Kingdom,

having entered into a partnership, the deed of which

contained an arbitration clause, seeks for the appointment

of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent contends that the

claim is hopelessly barred by limitation.

2. The brief fact to be noticed is that the partnership was

Signature Not Verified entered into by the petitioner’s sister and the respondent on Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2025.10.14 13:16:44 IST Reason: Page 1 of 4 Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2025 10.04.2008 with the objective of engaging in a real estate

business; inter alia of construction of service apartments.

The business was carried on, according to the respondent,

with the active involvement of the petitioner, the brother of

one of the partners. Later, the said partnership was

dissolved on 22.12.2008. Both parties admit that a new

partnership was entered into between the petitioner and the

respondent on 20.09.2014. The petitioner alleges that

substantial amounts were paid by him amounting to

Rs.2,31,85,600/-, on the strength of Clause 6 of the

Partnership Agreement which obligated 75% of the profits

to be transferred to the petitioner, nothing was done in the

property purchased on 04.05.2016. It is hence the prayer for

appointment of an arbitrator.

3. Admittedly, the purchase of the land alleged, was on

04.05.2016 and as per the notice dated 09.12.2020 produced

as per the Annexure P-1, the amounts were paid before the

said date. As on the date of notice, hence the claim for

recovery of amounts was barred by limitation.

Page 2 of 4 Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2025

4. It is also pertinent that the petitioner, in their

arbitration request itself, admits that on 06.05.2017, a Police

Complaint was raised before the Police Commissioner,

Bangalore against the respondent for fraud and cheating.

This complaint obviously was closed since the petitioner

had approached the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Mayohall at Bangalore under Section 200 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973, which stood rejected on 16.06.2017.

After the recital of the above facts, the petitioner in the

arbitration request speaks of the receipt of payment of Rs. 1

lakh on 04.08.2017. Even if limitation is computed from the

said date, the claim stands barred on 09.12.2020, when the

notice was issued seeking appointment of arbitrator.

5. The Counter Affidavit of the respondent also speaks of

a delayed challenge having been made to the order of the

Magistrate after about a year which was also rejected by the

Sessions Judge for reason of no explanation having been

offered for the delay of 234 days. Even after the notice

issued on 09.12.2020, the arbitration request was first made

Page 3 of 4 Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2025 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru on

22.06.2022 which remained in that Court till 20.01.2025,

when the same was disposed of leaving liberty to take

appropriate remedies. Relying on it, the petitioner filed the

current petition. It goes without saying even the notice of

arbitration was delayed and barred by limitation and the

arbitration request itself was made two years after the initial

notice.

6. The Arbitration Petition seeking appointment of

arbitrator stands dismissed.

7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

….…..……………………. CJI.

(B.R. GAVAI)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

New Delhi;

October 14, 2025.

Page 4 of 4 Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2025