As per case facts, the respondent initially filed an application for arbitrator appointment but unconditionally withdrew it to pursue insolvency proceedings against the appellant. Despite initial success at NCLT, the ... insolvency application was ultimately dismissed by higher courts, confirming a pre-existing dispute. Following this, the respondent filed a fresh application for arbitrator appointment, which the appellant challenged on grounds of maintainability and being time-barred, arguing that the prior withdrawal without liberty precluded a fresh application and that insolvency proceedings seek different relief than arbitration, thus disallowing benefits under the Limitation Act. The question arose whether a fresh application for arbitrator appointment is maintainable after a previous unconditional withdrawal, whether it is time-barred, and if the time spent in insolvency proceedings can be excluded under Section 14 or if delay can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the fresh application was not maintainable because the respondent had unconditionally withdrawn the first application without obtaining leave to file a fresh one. The Court also held the application to be time-barred. Crucially, it determined that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as insolvency proceedings and arbitration do not seek the "same relief," having distinct objectives of corporate rehabilitation versus private dispute adjudication. Furthermore, the Court declined to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, noting the respondent's conscious decision to abandon arbitration for insolvency proceedings, which was not considered a bona fide mistake warranting discretionary relief.