M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. Raj Kishore Singh & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 3238-3339 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7041-7042 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7041-7042 of 2000)
Petitioner: M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited
Respondent: Raj Kishore Singh & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 3238-3339 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7041-7042 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7041-7042 of 2000)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 05, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 6 Rule 17 with Arbitration Act, 1940 – Section 20 – Amendment – Petition under Arbitration Act – Amend-ment sought – Drastic changes – Nature of dispute changed – Permissibility. Held that such a change cannot be sustained. CA No. 63 of 1990 decided on 17.8.99 (P.A. Ahammed Ibrahim v. The Food Corpration of India reported in (JT 1999 (6) SC 383)) followed. Appeals allowed and orders set aside.
(Para 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. P.A. Ahammed Ibrahim v. The Food Corpration of India (JT 1999 (6) SC 383)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondent no.1 who is the only contesting respondent – the original applicant under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 finally in this appeal.
3. The short question is whether in an application moved by res-pondent no.1 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure could have been allowed and the nature of the dispute could have been changed drastically. Such a claim cannot be well-sustained in view of decision of this Court in CA No. 63 of 1990 decided on 17.8.1999 reported (JT 1999 (6) SC 382). Only on this short ground, the appeals are allowed. The order granting amendment of the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by the trial court and as confirmed by the High Court by the impugned order are set aside. Conse-quently, further interim orders based on the amended petition passed by the trial court under Section 20 of the Act would also fall through. However, at the request of learned Counsel for respondent no.1 – the original applicant – it is directed that status quo as existing on spot regarding the property in question shall be maintained by both the sides for eight weeks to enable respondent no.1, if so advised, to take appropriate steps as available to him under law. We make it clear that we express no opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondent no.1 who is the only contesting respondent – the original applicant under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 finally in this appeal.
3. The short question is whether in an application moved by res-pondent no.1 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure could have been allowed and the nature of the dispute could have been changed drastically. Such a claim cannot be well-sustained in view of decision of this Court in CA No. 63 of 1990 decided on 17.8.1999 reported (JT 1999 (6) SC 382). Only on this short ground, the appeals are allowed. The order granting amendment of the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by the trial court and as confirmed by the High Court by the impugned order are set aside. Conse-quently, further interim orders based on the amended petition passed by the trial court under Section 20 of the Act would also fall through. However, at the request of learned Counsel for respondent no.1 – the original applicant – it is directed that status quo as existing on spot regarding the property in question shall be maintained by both the sides for eight weeks to enable respondent no.1, if so advised, to take appropriate steps as available to him under law. We make it clear that we express no opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties.
