Reddy had initially filed a civil suit to have Nargolkar’s appointment declared null and void.
The civil court accepted the plea and referred the dispute to arbitration.
Reddy unsuccessfully challenged that decision in appeal and later moved the High Court in second appeal.
He eventually opted to pursue arbitration and approached the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator.
The High Court rejected both objections.
Reddy had initially filed a civil suit to have Nargolkar’s appointment declared null and void. However, the Kennel Club and the other respondents invoked the arbitration clause in its by-laws and sought reference of the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The civil court accepted the plea and referred the dispute to arbitration. Reddy unsuccessfully challenged that decision in appeal and later moved the High Court in second appeal. He eventually opted to pursue arbitration and approached the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator.
The Kennel Club opposed the arbitration petition, arguing that it was barred by limitation and that Reddy had failed to issue a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act.
The High Court rejected both objections.
It held that Reddy was entitled to exclude the period spent pursuing his appellate remedies while computing limitation.
