Arbitral Tribunal Not Bound By Strict Rigors Of CPC, Amendment Permissible At Any Stage Of Proceedings: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary has held that the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked for interfering with an interim order only in exceptionally rare cases. Additionally, the court held that Arbitral Tribunals are not bound by the strict rigours of CPC and an amendment is permissible at any stage of the proceedings for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Brief Facts: The petitioner has filed a writ petition for quashing the order passed by the sole Arbitrator allowing the amendment petition filed by the respondent under Section 23 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act") and under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The present dispute arose relating to a contract for the construction of the bridge on river Konar, along with its approach road, over bridge on Gomoh-Barkakana railway line at BTPS. To resolve the dispute, arbitration proceedings were started, which will expire on 17.02.2025. The petitioner contended that no reason was given by the respondent as to why the documents related to the amendment petition were not produced at the earlier stage. Also, in the amendment application, it has not even been stated that due diligence was exercised, and they failed to trace these documents. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is intended to meet a situation where a party is rendered remediless and since the arbitral proceeding was in its penultimate stage. Therefore, the petitioners had no other remedy except to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the court. Further, the petitioner relied on the case in Serosoft Solutions Private Ltd. Vs. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (2022). However, the respondent contended that it is not legally correct that the petitioners are remediless against the interim order. The petitioner can also challenge the order under Section 34 of the Act. Observation of the court: The court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Serosoft Solutions Private Ltd. Vs. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (2022), wherein the court held that the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked for interfering with an interim order only in exceptional rarity. Nevertheless, power exists and in exceptional circumstances, the said power can be invoked. However, an aperture and avenue for interference is a limited one. Further, the court didn't find it justified to interfere with the interim order in the exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for the following three reasons: Nature of amendment was necessitated during the pendency of the arbitral proceeding to bring certain facts on record for consideration by the sole arbitrator.Arbitral Tribunals are not bound by the strict rigors of CPC. Even otherwise, amendment is permissible at any stage of proceeding for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.The nature of amendment does not introduce a new cause of action or change the nature of lis between the parties but is to enable the Arbitrator to determine the real question in controversy between the parties. Finally, the writ petition was dismissed. Case Title: Rites Ltd v. M/s Supreme BKB DECO JVLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 7 Case Number: W. P. (C) No. 311 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate Mr. K. Hari, Advocate Ms. Sanya, Advocate Date of Judgment: 22.01.2025 Click Here To Read/Download The order

Arbitral Tribunal Not Bound By Strict Rigors Of CPC, Amendment Permissible At Any Stage Of Proceedings: Jharkhand High Court

Soumya Chakrabarti

Tags