STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus M/S B.B.M. ENTERPRISES

Citation: [2026] 5 S.C.R. 154 · Decided: 09-04-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 5 S.C.R. 154 : 2026 INSC 358
State of West Bengal & Ors.  
v. 
M/s B.B.M. Enterprises
(Civil Appeal No. 4320 of 2026)
09 April 2026
[Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether a notice seeking commencement of arbitration, issued 
on 02.06.2022, could set in motion the process of resolution of a 
dispute regarding a work completed as early as on 30.07.2000.
Headnotes†
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.42, 43 – Limitation 
Act, 1963 – Article 18 – Work completed in the year 2000 – 
Notice seeking commencement of arbitration issued after 21 
years in 2022 – By way of the impugned judgment, Arbitrator 
appointed by High Court – Sustainability:
Held: Unsustainable – Arbitration though is an alternate dispute 
resolution system, which has to be encouraged, it cannot deviate 
from the fundamental principle that law favours the diligent and 
not the indolent – For recovery of amounts, as in this case, the 
limitation is three years as provided in Article 18 of the Limitation 
Act, 1963 – The commencement of arbitration proceedings as per 
sub-section (2) of s.43 being the date referred in s.21, which is 
the date on which a request for initiation of arbitration is received 
by the respondent, the claim itself was hopelessly time barred, 
the notice having been issued after 21 years – Despite the work 
having concluded on 30.07.2000, the petitioner did not attempt to 
raise a bill or initiate the arbitration proceedings till 2022, when 
a notice requiring commencement of arbitration proceedings was 
first issued – Appellant slept over its claim for 21 years before the 
notice seeking arbitration was issued in 2022; an ex-facie dead 
claim – High Court erred insofar as finding failure on the part of 
the Engineer-in-Charge to determine the final amount payable, 
having extended the limitation – If there was such a failure on the 
part of the Engineer-in-Charge, it was for the contractor to have 
initiated arbitration then and there – Neither was notice issued 
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 
155
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. M/s B.B.M. Enterprises
for arbitration nor was a final bill raised or a request made to 
determine the total amount payable – Order initiating arbitration 
set aside. [Paras 5, 6]
Case Law Cited
Vishram Varu and Company v. Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 588; 
Arif Azim Company Limited v. Aptech Limited [2024] 3 SCR 73 : 
(2024) 5 SCC 313; Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. ASAP Fluids 
Private Limited and Another [2024] 12 SCR 108 : (2025) 1 SCC 
502; Vidya Drolia and Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation [2020] 11 
SCR 1001 : (2021) 2 SCC 1; Bharat Sanchar Nigan Limited and 
Anr. v. Nortel Networks India Private Limited [2021] 2 SCR 644 : 
(2021) 5 SCC 738; Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899, In Re. 
[2023] 15 SCR 1081 : (2024) 6 SCC 1 – referred to.
List of Acts
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Limitation Act, 1963.
List of Keywords
Claim ex-facie time barred; Claim hopelessly time barred; Section 42 
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Limitation for recovery 
of amounts; Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963; Law favours the 
diligent; Ex-facie dead claim; Notice seeking commencement of 
arbitration issued after 21 years.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4320 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2024 of the High Court 
at Calcutta in AP No. 535 of 2022.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Varij Nayan 
Mishra.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Sudhanshu Choudhari, Sakya Sen, Sr. Advs., Sarad Kumar 
Singhania, Yash Singhania, Ms. Nilanjana Adhya.
156
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
The neat question arising in the above case is as to whether a notice 
seeking commencement of arbitration, issued on 02.06.2022, could 
set in motion the process of resolution of a dispute regarding a 
work completed as early as on 30.07.2000. The High Court dealing 
with the application under Section 11 found from the agreement 
that there is an ambiguity in Clause 7 which requires the final bill 
to be submitted by the contractor within one month from the date 
fixed for completion of work dehors which the Engineer-in-Charge is 
competent to issue a certificate of measurement and the total amount 
payable for the work, which shall be final and binding
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.