Veenadevi Singhania v. Raymond Limited

Bombay HC1 Oct 2025IA/4686/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauri Godse; Bombay High Court OOCJ; Commercial Arbitration Petition 299/2023 and 300/2023; Interim Application 4686/2025 and 4685/2025; leave to amend Section 34 petition; Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; proviso to Section 34(3); limitation; new grounds; new prayer; amendment at admission stage; Raymond Limited; Veenadevi Singhania; Akshaypat Singhania; final disposal at admission stage 16 January 2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim Applications Nos. 4686 of 2025 and 4685 of 2025 allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) (leave to amend the arbitration petitions), with all objections raised in the replies kept open; amendment to be carried out within three weeks; reply, if any, to be filed within three weeks of service of the amended petitions; petitions listed for final disposal at admission stage on 16th January 2026. ¶¶32

Veenadevi Singhania vs Raymond Limited — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether leave to amend the pending Section 34 arbitration petitions — by way of additional grounds and modification/addition of the prayer — should be permitted at the pre-admission stage, given that permitting the amendments requires examining the main petitions on merits. +1 more

¶¶30

Court's answer

Leave to amend the arbitration petitions is allowed, keeping all objections open (including the objection of limitation), because whether the proposed amendments in the form of additional grounds and the prayer can be permitted depends on examination of the main petition on merits.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

The objections that the proposed amendments add new grounds and a new prayer and are barred by limitation under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 are to be decided at the hearing of the petitions on merits; if the amendments are found barred or otherwise impermissible in law, they can be discarded at that stage, and granting permission to amend does not mean the amendments are accepted on merits.

¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ) — Commercial Arbitration Petitions Nos. 299 and 300 of 2023 (Veenadevi Singhania and Anr.; Akshaypat Singhania v. Raymond Limited and Anr.), petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not yet heard for admission: Interim Applications Nos. 4686 and 4685 of 2025 seeking leave to amend the petitions by way of additional grounds and prayer allowed by Gauri Godse, J. All objections — including that the amendments add new grounds and a new prayer and are barred by limitation under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 — expressly kept open to be decided at the final hearing; amendments found barred or otherwise impermissible can be discarded on merits, and leave to amend does not amount to acceptance on merits. Amendment to be carried out within three weeks; replies within three weeks of service; with the consent of both parties, petitions listed for final disposal at admission stage on 16th January 2026.

¶1

32-IA-4686-2025.doc

¶2

MJ Jadhav

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.299 OF 2023

¶4

WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4686 OF 2025

¶6

¶7

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.299 OF 2023

¶8

Veenadevi Singhania and Anr. … Petitioners/Applicants Vs.

¶9

Digitally signed byMANGALTAI MANGALTAI JAYWANT JAYWANT JADHAV JADHAV Date: 2025.11.25 15:07:07 +0530

¶10

Raymond Limited and Anr. … Respondents

¶11

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.300 OF 2023

¶12

WITH

¶13

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4685 OF 2025 IN

¶14

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.300 OF 2023

¶15

Akshaypat Singhania … Petitioner/Applicant

¶16

Vs. Raymond Limited and Anr. … Respondents

¶17

Mr. Darius Khambata a/w Aditya Mehta a/w Vidhi Shah a/w Rohan Dakshini a/w Namrata Shah a/w Supriya Lopes a/w Jai Sanyal a/w Nimit Bhimjiyani i/b M/s. Rashmikant and Partners for the Applicant (Original Petitioner).

¶18

Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate a/w Chirag Inamdar a/w Suraj Juneja i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Respondent No.1 in IA/4686/2025 in ARBP/299/2023.

¶19

Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate a/w Chirag Kamdar a/w Suraj Juneja i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent No.1 in IA/4685/2025 in ARBP/300/2023.

¶20

Page no. 1 of 4

¶21

32-IA-4686-2025.doc

¶22

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 21^st NOVEMBER 2025

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4686 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4685 OF 2025

¶25

These applications are filed seeking leave to amend the arbitration petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitions are yet to be heard for admission and are at a preliminary stage.

¶26

According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the proposed amendments are in addition to the grounds which are already raised and no new grounds are raised. Hence, amendments can be allowed.

¶27

Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the proposed amendments on the ground that not only new grounds are sought to be added but even, the prayer made in the petition is sought to be modified and a new prayer is sought to be added. Hence, according to him, the grounds raised and the prayer by way of the proposed amendments would be barred by limitation. Hence, no purpose would be served by permitting amendment.

¶28

Page no. 2 of 4

¶29

32-IA-4686-2025.doc

¶30

I have perused the main petitions and the proposed amendments. For considering whether the proposed amendments in the form of additional grounds and the prayer can be permitted, it would be necessary to examine the main petition on merits. Hence, in my view by keeping all the objections open including the objection whether the proposed amendments would be barred by limitation, the same can be allowed.

¶31

It is clarified that the objections regarding whether the proposed amendments would mean addition of new grounds and new prayer and whether they would be barred in view of the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, would be decided at the time of hearing the petition on merits. It is further clarified that if the proposed amendments are found to be barred or otherwise found impermissible in law to be added by way of amendment, the same can be discarded when the petition is heard and decided on merits. Granting permission to carry out amendment would not mean that the proposed amendments are accepted on merits.

¶32

Hence, by keeping all the objections raised in the reply to the amendment applications open, the Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶33

Page no. 3 of 4

¶34

32-IA-4686-2025.doc

¶35

7. Amendment to be carried out within three weeks.

¶36