Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his applications for amendment (Exh.35 and Exh.36) in an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, pending before the District Judge at Parbhani. The petitioner had initially filed MARJI No.103/2014 before the Principal District Judge, Aurangabad, which was rejected for lack of territorial jurisdiction. An arbitration appeal against that order was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on 9.5.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed MARJI No.198/2014 before the District Judge at Parbhani. In that proceeding, the petitioner sought to amend his application to include a specific prayer for injunction against alienation of partnership property, which was opposed by the respondents. The trial court rejected the amendment applications. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the amendment sought was necessary for effective adjudication and did not change the nature of the proceedings. The court observed that the amendment would avoid multiplicity of litigation and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents as they could file additional written statements. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders, and permitted the petitioner to carry out the amendments. The respondents were granted liberty to file additional written statements within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Amendment sought to include claim for injunction against alienation of partnership property in an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Court allowed amendment as it did not change the nature of the proceedings and was necessary for effective adjudication - Held that amendment should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigation (Paras 7-10).
B) Arbitration - Interim Measures - Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Application for interim relief including injunction against alienation of partnership property - Court held that such relief is within the scope of Section 9 and amendment to specifically plead it is permissible (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner should be permitted to amend his application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to include a claim for injunction against alienation of partnership property, and whether such amendment would change the nature of the proceedings or cause prejudice to the respondents.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders dated 8.8.2014 and 11.8.2014 passed by the District Judge at Parbhani, and permitted the petitioner to carry out the amendments as sought in Exh.35 and Exh.36. The respondents were granted liberty to file additional written statements within four weeks.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Partnership property
- Injunction against alienation
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (11) 20
Writ Petition No.7996 of 2014
Mr. P.M. Shah, Sr. advocate i/b Mr. S.V. Adwant, advocate for the petitioner; Mr. R.F. Totla, advocate for respondent No.1; Mr. A.S. Bajaj, advocate for respondent No.2
Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal
Jugalkishor Chhaganlal Tapadia and Tapadia Constructions Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging rejection of amendment applications in an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to amend his application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to include a specific prayer for injunction against alienation of partnership property.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the petitioner's applications for amendment (Exh.35 and Exh.36) in MARJI No.198/2014 pending before the District Judge at Parbhani.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, the petitioner's application MARJI No.103/2014 before the Principal District Judge, Aurangabad was rejected for lack of territorial jurisdiction on 17.4.2014. Arbitration Appeal No.3/2014 against that order was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on 9.5.2014.
Issues
Whether the amendment sought by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC should be allowed.
Whether the amendment would change the nature of the proceedings or cause prejudice to the respondents.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the amendment was necessary to include a specific prayer for injunction against alienation of partnership property, which was already implicit in the original application, and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents.
Respondents opposed the amendment, contending that it would change the nature of the proceedings and that the petitioner was trying to introduce a new cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi
Amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to ensure effective adjudication, provided it does not change the nature of the proceedings or cause prejudice to the opposite party that cannot be compensated by costs or opportunity to respond.
Judgment Excerpts
Issue is as regards two applications filed by the petitioner herein, under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The amendment sought by the petitioner is necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy and would not change the nature of the proceedings.
The respondents can be compensated by costs and by granting them an opportunity to file additional written statement.
Procedural History
The petitioner initially filed MARJI No.103/2014 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Principal District Judge, Aurangabad, which was rejected on 17.4.2014 for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner filed Arbitration Appeal No.3/2014 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 9.5.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed MARJI No.198/2014 before the District Judge at Parbhani. In that proceeding, the petitioner filed amendment applications Exh.35 and Exh.36, which were rejected by the District Judge on 8.8.2014 and 11.8.2014. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging those orders.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VI, Rule 17
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9
