Dismissed

M/S. Bhapkar Petroleum a Proprietory Firm v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Bombay HC29 Apr 2014WP/2091/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the refusal to amend pleadings in an arbitration case before the District Court. The High Court found the proposed amendments were argumentative, not factual. While dismissing the petition on merits, the Court held the District Judge's extra observations required no weight.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed. The District Judge was directed to treat the impugned observations as interlocutory and not be influenced by them.

2.In Arbitration Petition No.8 of 2013 before the learned District Judge, Ahmednagar, the petitioner preferred an application for adding paragraph Nos.13(a) and (b) by way of an amendment to its original application. The said application for amendment has been turned down by the learned Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar, by the impugned order dated 12.2.2014.

3.The petitioner contends that the proposed amendment is material to the cause of action. The trial of the matter has still not commenced. No loss or harm of any nature would be caused to the respondent by allowing the

amendment. The nature of the cause of action would not be altered in any manner whatsoever. The case of the petitioner would be weakened, if the proposed amendment is not allowed. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

4.Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the petitioner desires to delay the appointment of an Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Delaying tactics are being resorted to by the petitioner. His application is purely aimed for delaying the matter. The contents of the proposed paragraphs are in the nature of an analysis of certain contentions which are already on record, either through the pleadings of the parties or through certain documents. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is neither perverse nor unsustainable and deserves no interference.

5.After having heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides and with their assistance, I have gone through the petition paper book. I find from the proposed paragraphs that they are not in the nature of pleadings, either factually or to bring subsequent events on record.

6.Both the proposed paragraphs, in my view, clearly appear to be argumentative in nature and are merely an analysis of certain dates, events and reports. The conclusions are sought to be drawn by such analysis in the two proposed paragraphs. Such contents amounting to arguments can be put forth by the petitioner at an appropriate stage. I do not find that the said proposed paragraphs are of such a nature that the adjudication of the proceedings would suffer if they are not permitted to be brought on record.

7.Having gone through the impugned order, but for paragraph No.4, the impugned order requires no interference. In paragraph No.4, the learned Principal District Judge, while dealing with the application for amendment, has travelled beyond the ambit of the said application. Certain observations have been made in paragraph No.4, which are likely to impact the case of the petitioner before the proceedings are adjudicated upon.

interlocutory stage and the learned Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar shall not be influenced by the same, in any manner, while dealing with the main matter on its own merits. These observations shall not impinge the rights of the litigating parties.

9.In the light of the above, the petition is devoid of merits. With my observation in relation to paragraph No. 4 of the impugned order, the rest of the order stands and the petition is, therefore, disposed of. No order as to costs.

M/S. Bhapkar Petroleum a Proprietory Firm v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Bhapkar Petroleum a Proprietory Firm v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Shankar Bandgar (Decd) Lrs Vs Venkat Rama Bandgar (Decd) Lrs and Ors.

Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune and Anr. Vs Puran Maharashtra Automobiles, Aurangabad and Others

Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune and Another Vs Puran Maharashtra Automobiles and Others

Yuvraj Pandit Dhangar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balaji Bapurao Kakde and Others Vs Baburao Bapurao Kakde and Another

Saiyed Akhtrunisa Ali Hasan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others