JUDGMENT M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal has been preferred by the appellant, being aggrieved against the dismissal of O.P.No.1086 of 1997 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, vide, order dated 08.11.2006. 2. Facts in brief: 2.1 The first respondent is a Member of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited-the third respondent herein. The appellant became the customer of the first respondent in the year 1996. The appellant used to avail the facility of the first respondent for buying and selling in stocks and shares listed before the third respondent. In the course of transaction between the appellant and the first respondent, a sum of Rs.3,98,376.70 together with interest at 25% per annum became due. This prompted the first respondent in refusing to permit the appellant to continue any further trading with it. The appellant sent a letter, dated 17.09.1996, to the first respondent seeking compensation. The first respondent issued a legal notice, dated 08.11.1996, requiring the appellant to pay the money due. After receipt of the said legal notice, a reply notice was sent on 13.11.1996 by the appellant, which was received by the first respondent on 16.11.1996. In view of the said dispute between the parties, the first respondent invoked the arbitration under the National Stock Exchange (Capital Market) Trading Regulations, 1994. 2.2. The learned Arbitrator directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.3,98,376,70 with interest at 18% per annum. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant moved this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996. The learned single Judge dismissed the application in O.P.No.1086 of 1997 by order dated 08.11.2006 and hence, the present Original Side Appeal. 3. Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant made his submissions on the question of limitation. The learned counsel has stated that the dispute has arisen prior to 17.09.1996, when the first respondent refused to continue the trading with the appellant. In view of the said factual position, application of Clause 5 of the Regulation, which contains an arbitration does not arise and since the very claim is barred by limitation, the Original Side Appeal has to be allowed. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that both the arbitrator as well as the learned single Judge have considered the issue in detail. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that both the arbitrator as well as the learned single Judge have considered the issue in detail. For the purpose of limitation, receipt of notice from the appellant alone will have to be taken into consideration and nothing else needs to be looked into. The issue of limitation being vexed question of fact and law, a technical approach defeating the very purpose of arbitration cannot be adopted. The appellant having taken part in the arbitration, cannot now question the jurisdiction so as to deal with the matter on merits. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal may be dismissed. 5. The only question to be decided in this Original Side Appeal is as to whether the claim made by the first respondent is barred by limitation or not. The facts surrounding the case are not in dispute. The appellant issued a notice on 17.09.1996 claiming compensation. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent by the first respondent on 08.11.1996. In the said notice, the first respondent claimed the amount due from the appellant and the same was received by the appellant on 12.11.1996. A reply notice was sent by the appellant on 13.11.1996 and the same was received by the first respondent on 16.11.1996. The appellant repudiated the claim of the first respondent by way of legal notice, which was received on 16.11.1996. Hence, we do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. If 16.11.1996 is taken into consideration as the starting point of limitation of 90 days as stipulated in Regulation 5, then the claim petition is well within the period of limitation. The claim petition was filed on 12.2.1997. Hence, it cannot be said that even prior to the correspondence between the parties, the limitation would start. Such an interpretation would make the very provision as redundant and unworkable. Therefore, we do not find any error in the orders passed by the learned Arbitrator and the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.