Trace Your Case


Megha Enterprises And Ors v. Haldiram Snacks Pvt Ltd (Judgment dated March 1).


  • Whether the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision that Haldiram’s claim is not barred by limitation because Megha acknowledged her debt through email conversations complies with Section 18 of the Limitation Act?
  • Whether, in light of the High Sea Sale Agreements’ choice of jurisdiction, the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision that it had territorial jurisdiction to decide Haldiram’s claims is legally sound and consistent with the parties’ intentions under the agreements?


  • The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (A&C Act) controls the arbitration proceedings in this matter, while the Limitation Act of 1963 is consulted for concerns concerning the limitation period.


  • Megha and Coral engaged into contracts for the sale and acquisition of crude palm oil.
  • In 2013, invoices were sent, and payments were due within a specific time frame.
  • Coral merged with Haldiram, and Haldiram demanded the outstanding sum from Megha.
  • Megha challenged the allegation, claiming that it was not obligated to pay.
  • Haldiram requested arbitration, and the Arbitral Tribunal was formed to settle the claims.
  • The primary question in this case is the limitation period for Haldiram’s claim and whether Megha’s statements might be considered acknowledgements of the debt.


  • The Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the claim that it lacked territorial jurisdiction.
  • It ruled that Haldiram’s claims were not prohibited by limitation, citing certain interactions, including emails, as evidence of debt acknowledgement.
  • Megha appealed the Arbitral Tribunal’s ruling, claiming that the communications did not comply with Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
  • The main point of contention is the appraisal of evidence and the implementation of the limitation period.