ESTEEM MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. K H PAREKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these Chamber Summonses the petitioners are seeking to amend the original Arbitration Petition Nos. 364/2000 and 363/2000 so as to add certain grounds viz. to add the grounds enumerated in Exh. A to the Chamber Summons No. 284/2001 so far as Arbitration Petition No. 364/2000 is concerned, and to add the grounds mentioned in the Schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons No. 285/2001 so far as the Arbitration Petition No. 364/2000 is concerned.

(2.) MR. Narulla, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though at the time when the petitions were dictated, the grounds were not dictated and on the next date, the grounds were dictated to another stenographer, but the same were omitted to be included in the petitions which were filed on 6th October, 2000. Mr. Narulla contended that in the interest of justice these grounds should be allowed to be added by way of an amendment to the petitions. Otherwise, serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioners.

(3.) MR. Mukri, the learned Counsel for the respondents has raised the preliminary objection that such an amendment can never be allowed i. e. adding of new grounds to the arbitration petitions would be beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Mr. Mukri referred to and relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Appeal No. 683/2000 in Chamber Summons No. 871/2000 in Arbitration Petition No. 121/2000 and Appeal No. 618/2000 in Arbitration Petition No. 121/2000 (Vastu Finvest and Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Gujrat Lease Financing Limited), dated 9th November, 2000. In the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench dealt with the learned Single Judges order whereby the learned Single Judge had declined to entertain the Chamber Summons to add certain grounds, inasmuch as the said Chamber Summons was taken out after the period as prescribed under section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Division Bench had fully concurred with the view of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Chamber Summons on the ground that the same was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under section 34 (3) of the Act. The Division Bench has observed in paragraph 13 of the said judgment as under :-