ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. 1. The applicant entered into a contract dated 24.12.2013 with the non-applicant for supplying manpower i.e. computer instructors. 2. Clause 10 of the agreement dated 24.12.2013 provided that in the event of any dispute arising between the parties related to the contract, it would be addressed by resort to the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. Admittedly, the agreement dated 24.12.2013 was terminated by the non-applicant on 17.7.2014 and no supply of manpower (computer instructors) thereafter made. 4. The case of the applicant in this application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1996') filed on 14.8.2018 is that certain amounts in terms of supplies of computer instructors made under the agreement dated 24.12.2013 are due and owing by the non-applicant and despite notice have not been paid. It has been submitted that non-payment of the amounts due tantamounts to a dispute obtaining in respect of and relating the agreement dated 24.12.2013 which ought to be adjudicated through an arbitrator in terms of Clause 10 thereof. It has been submitted that in the circumstances a notice was sent under Clause 10 of the agreement dated 24.12.2013 to the non-applicant for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the due amounts to the applicant as detailed in the notice. Yet the arbitrator has not been appointed and in this circumstance one now be appointed by this court by resort to its power under Section 11 (6) of the Act of 1996. 5. Reply to the petition has been filed. It has been submitted that the claim agitated in this application is ex facie time barred. There is no live claim which is arbitrable. The contract in issue was terminated on 17.7.2014. Payment if any due (which is denied) were as of that date. But the arbitration clause was invoked in 15.3.2018 after a lapse of three and half years subsequent to limitation for the agitating the money claim having expired. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.B.P. and Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Ors. ( AIR 2006 SC 450 ) where it was held that reference to arbitration cannot be made in respect of time barred claims. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.B.P. and Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Ors. ( AIR 2006 SC 450 ) where it was held that reference to arbitration cannot be made in respect of time barred claims. It has been further submitted, that in any event, far from any sum being due and owing to the applicant, the applicant has been over paid. And infact a sum of Rs. 4,33,810/- is due and owing by the applicant to the non-applicant for which a demand has been raised against it. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. An arbitrator can be appointed by the court under Section 11 (6) of the Act of 1996 only in respect of live claims i.e. which inter alia are not time barred. Section 43 of the Act of 1996 provides that the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in court. Sub-Section (2) of Section 43 provides that for the purpose of the said section and the Limitation Act, 1963 an arbitration shall be deemed to have commenced on the date referred in Section 21. Section 21 of the Act of 1996 provides that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent. 8. In the context of the aforesaid statutory provisions, a bare look at the facts of the case shows that the agreement dated 24.12.2013 was terminated on 17.7.2014. Any amount if at all due to the applicant for the work done as of the date of termination became due on the said date. Notice for arbitration of the purported dispute for the due amount payable to the applicant under the agreement dated 24.12.2013 however came to be issued only on 15.3.2018 after a period of 3 years 6 months. 9. On these facts, I am of the considered view that the money claims of the applicant as agitated in this application with regard to the payment of alleged outstanding amounts due for service-supply of manpower (computer instructors) rendered under the agreement dated 24.12.2013 are time barred. The amounts allegedly due are not recoverable in law. No live arbitrable claim in that regard therefore obtains. The amounts allegedly due are not recoverable in law. No live arbitrable claim in that regard therefore obtains. The power of the court under Section 11 (6) of the Act of 1996 to appoint an arbitrator in terms of an arbitration clause between the parties to an agreement cannot be mechanically exercised even with reference to time barred--non live claims. There can not be a futile exercise of judicial power. 10. In this view of the matter, I find no force in this application. Dismissed.