K SATISH KUMAR Vs. ROHAN ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to call in to question the order dated 31st July, 2013 made by learned arbitrator so as to allow the application for amendment filed by the respondent herein. The entertainment of the petition was objected on the preliminary ground of its maintainability and, therefore, learned Counsel are heard in esteso only on the issue of maintainability of the petition.

(2.) THERE is no dispute about the fact that the arbitration proceeding between the parties is pending before the learned arbitrator and only an interim order is made on 31st July, 2013, on the application of the claimant under Sec. 23(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, there is also no dispute about the fact that the impugned order is an interlocutory order made during the pendency of the arbitration.

(3.) THE law on the subject is well settled by Seven Judges Bench of the Apex Court in SBP and Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another, 2005 8 SCC 618and the relevant part thereof may be reproduced as under :