In Flemingo (DFS) Private Limited v. Airports Authority of India, ARB.P. 853/2025 (decided 7 September 2026), Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed a sole arbitrator in a long-running dispute over rent and fees charged under a duty-free concession. The Authority resisted on limitation, pointing to grievances stretching back to 2017. The Court held the cause of action for arbitration crystallised only when the Authority first rejected the claims in October 2021, that the March 2022 invocation was therefore timely, and that the 147 days the parties spent in mediation had to be excluded from the limitation computation for the petition.
The dispute
The petitioner operates duty-free shops under a licence agreement of 2011 with the Airports Authority of India. From 2017 onwards it complained, through administrative channels, that it was being charged excess rent and fees under the concession. Those complaints produced years of correspondence but no resolution. On 11 October 2021 the Authority first rejected the claims in terms. The operator invoked arbitration on 14 March 2022. The parties then attempted mediation between June and November 2023; when that failed, the operator petitioned the Delhi High Court under Section 11(6) for the appointment of an arbitrator.
The Authority's principal defence was limitation: if the grievance dated from 2017, both the invocation and the petition were, on its case, beyond salvage.
Three holdings
The Court appointed a sole arbitrator and left questions of arbitrability of particular claims to the tribunal, consistent with the limited scope of referral proceedings.
Why the crystallisation point matters
Commercial parties — particularly concessionaires, contractors and licensees dealing with public authorities — often spend years pursuing claims through internal and administrative channels before anyone utters the word arbitration. If limitation ran from the first complaint, that patience would be fatal. This judgment continues the line of authority treating the definitive rejection of a claim as the trigger: an actionable "dispute" requires assertion by one side and clear refusal by the other.
The corollary carries its own warning. Once a rejection is unambiguous, the clock runs hard. Claimants cannot extend limitation by writing fresh reminders of the same claim after a final refusal, and respondents who intend to rely on limitation should refuse claims in clear, dated, written terms rather than leaving them to drift.
The mediation exclusion
The exclusion of the mediation window aligns arbitration practice with the broader legislative push — from Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to the Mediation Act, 2023 — toward settlement before adjudication. For Delhi practice, two habits follow. First, record mediation start and end dates formally, because those boundaries now have limitation value. Second, when advising a client mid-mediation about an approaching deadline, the safer course remains to invoke or file protectively where possible; the exclusion helps, but a documented, bounded mediation makes the argument clean.
Referral courts examine limitation only to weed out ex facie dead claims. A respondent with a substantial limitation defence loses little: the plea survives for the tribunal, where the full factual record on crystallisation, acknowledgment and exclusions can be tried.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the limitation period for a Section 11 petition?
A petition under Section 11(6) must be filed within three years of the date on which the right to apply accrues — broadly, when the opposite party fails to act on a valid invocation of arbitration. Courts also examine, at a threshold level, whether the underlying claims are hopelessly stale.
When does the cause of action for invoking arbitration arise?
Not necessarily when the grievance first surfaces. Where parties are engaged in correspondence and administrative consideration of claims, the limitation clock is generally taken to start when the claim is clearly and finally refused, because only then does an actionable dispute crystallise.
Does time spent in mediation count against limitation?
In this decision the Delhi High Court excluded the roughly 147-day mediation window from the computation. The approach encourages parties to attempt settlement without fear that the attempt itself will time-bar their arbitration remedies.
Who decides whether the claims themselves are arbitrable or time-barred?
The referral court's examination under Section 11 is confined to the existence of the arbitration agreement and ex facie deadness of the claim. Questions of arbitrability and detailed limitation defences remain within the domain of the arbitrator.