PASUPATI FABRICS LIMITED Vs. SAVANI FINANCIAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed for reference of disputes to an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Court. The brief facts giving rise of this petition are:

(2.) In paragraph 7(c) of the petition the petitioner has stated that Clause 10 of the agreement provided the manner and mode of computation of the underwriting obligation whereas Clause 11 provided the procedure for effecting discharge of these obligations. It is also stated in this paragraph that Clause 17 provided the manner of termination of the agreement and Clause 20 provided arbitration by a Committee constituted by the Delhi Stock Exchange.

(3.) A preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition was taken on the ground that the clauses mentioned in paragraph 7(C) did not provide for the eventualities stated therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a typographical error in this paragraph in as much as in place of Clause 8, Clause 10 has been written whereas in place of Clause 9, Clause 11 has been written. It is also contended that while Clause 14 provided for termination of the contract, in the application Clause 17 has been written in its place and in place of Clause 17 which provided for reference to arbitration the petitioner due to a typographical mistake has mentioned Clause 20. An oral prayer was, therefore, made counsel for the petitioner for permission to amend Clause 7(C) of the application. Though this prayer for amendment of para 7(C) of the application is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent but I find that no material difference will be made in the petition in case the errors which have crept in the paragraph 7(C) of the application are permitted to be corrected by the petitioner. The Courts cannot be tied down by rules of procedure which are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to subvert the same. The errors in the application are only clerical and typographical in nature and the disposal of this petition cannot be delayed by calling upon the petitioner to make a formal application for amendment. The corrections sought to be made in paragraph 7(C) are, in my opinion, relevant and necessary to decide the controversy between the parties. I have, therefore, permitted the petitioner to correct the errors in the petition itself and necessary corrections have been made by the petitioner in the Court today itself.