PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. BENGAL ENERGY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the petitioner for amendment of the grounds contained in an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). The arbitration petition is for setting aside of an Arbitral Award dated 31st March, 2017 passed by a Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators and was filed within the statutory period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act. The petitioner seeks to amend certain grounds contained in the arbitration petition by way of what the petitioner claims to be "amplification" of the grounds already existing in the arbitration petition.

(2.) Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, seeks to explain the reason for filing the application. Counsel submits that the petitioner engaged the present set of lawyers a month after filing of the arbitration petition and it is only upon receiving the arbitration petition as filed, that it was discovered that the grounds in support of the arbitration petition have not been amplified. Counsel submits that the grounds, which are sought to be brought in by way of the present amendment, have been taken by way of abundant caution and would not change the nature and character of the present petition. Counsel relies on Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited Vs. AMCI (India) Private Limited, 2009 17 SCC 796, Venture Global Engineering Vs. Satyam Computer Services Ltd., 2010 8 SCC 660, Emkay Global Financial Services Limited Vs. Girdhar Sondhi, 2018 9 SCC 49 and State of Maharashtra Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Limited, 2010 4 SCC 518, as instances where the court in Section 34 applications, allowed the grounds to be amended after taking into account all relevant considerations.

(3.) Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/award holder opposes the application on the legislative intent behind prescribing specific timelines under Section 34(3) of the Act. Counsel submits that if a petitioner in a Section 34 application is permitted to amend the grounds contained in the said petition, there would be no end to litigation and the object behind prescribing a cut-off period for filing under Section 34 sub-section(3) would be defeated. Counsel opposes the grounds, now sought to be brought in by the petitioner, as being completely new, which would change the very nature of the arbitration petition and are by no means amplification of the existing grounds as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that amendments may be allowed only to a limited extent where the arbitration petition already contains the basic grounds of challenge which are sought to be elaborated or amplified and that the present application is not such a case. Counsel relies on Bijendra Nath Srivastava (Dead) Vs. Mayank Srivastava, 1994 6 SCC 117 and Vastu Invest & Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai Vs. Gujarat Lease Financing Ltd., Mumbai, 2001 2 MhLJ 565/ (2001) 2 Arb LR 315 to show that amendments for introducing new grounds will not be permitted in a section 34 application.