“Time” is of paramount significance and arbitration agreements have been ever-evolving to create a more ‘efficient’ and ‘speedy’ dispute-resolution process. One of such innovative way to achieve these goals is to include a ‘Contractual Time-limitation’ clause in the arbitration agreement. Such clauses have emerged as a ‘procedural arbitration requirement’ in the jurisprudence of international arbitration, distinguished from a ‘condition precedent’ to arbitration. Like wheels to a chariot, they serve to accelerate and augment the efficiency of the arbitral process. This Chapter shall closely inspect the effect of a contractual time-limitation clause on substantive claims of parties and the associated cause-of-action. Herein, a comparison between the working of a contractual time-limitation clause vis-à-vis Statutory law of limitations becomes imperative. Accordingly, this Chapter shall examine judicial decisions across jurisdictions, which have carved out a “classic distinction” by classifying contractual time-limitation clauses as ‘claim-barring’ and statutory limitations to be ‘remedy-barring’. Furthermore, in order to safeguard parties from being hoodwinked into unreasonable bargains, there ought to be a difference in standards of contractual interpretation, depending on whether the time-limitation clause forms a part of a ‘Standard Form’ or ‘Negotiated’ contract. Finally, this Chapter shall conclude by examining the scope of “judicial intervention” in such cases, where they must strike a balance between “party autonomy” and principles of equity.