Amendment Permissible At Any Stage Of Proceeding; Arbitral Tribunal Not Bound By Strict Rigours of CPC: Jharkhand HC
The Writ Petition before the Jharkhand High Court was filed for quashing the order passed by the sole Arbitrator allowing the amendment petition filed by the claimant-respondent.

The Jharkhand High Court clarified that Arbitral Tribunals are not bound by the strict rigors of CPC and amendment is permissible at any stage of the proceeding for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
The writ petition before the High Court was filed for quashing the order passed by the sole Arbitrator allowing the amendment petition filed by the claimant-respondent under Section 23 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary said, “...nature of amendment does not introduce a new cause of action or change the nature of lis between the parties, but are to enable the learned Arbitrator to determine the real question in controversy between the parties.”
Senior Advocate M.S. Mittal represented the Petitioners while Advocate Sumeet Gadodia represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioners are the respondents in the arbitral proceeding which pertains to the dispute between the petitioners and the claimants regarding a contract which was entered into between the parties pursuant to a tender floated by the Damodar Valley Corporation. It was the claimant’s case that the respondent was liable for a fundamental breach of the contract and the claimant was entitled to payment of escalation and price variation on the basis of the current price in indices for the remaining work done.
Arguments
The interim order allowing the amendment petition had been assailed on the ground that the documents, which were relied upon and brought on record by way of amendment petition, were available with the claimant and no reason was assigned as to why it was not produced at the earlier stage. It was further argued that the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is intended to meet a situation where a party is rendered remediless and since the arbitral proceeding was in its penultimate stage, therefore, the petitioners had no other remedy except to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
It was the case of the claimant-respondent that the High Court could not interfere with the order passed by the arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal during the course of the arbitration proceeding and the parties would approach the Court only in terms of Section 37 of the Act or in terms of Section 34 of the Act.
Reasoning
The Bench found force in the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Serosoft Solutions Private Ltd. Vs. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (2022) that the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked for interfering with an interim order only in exceptional rarity. “Nevertheless, the power exists and in exceptional circumstance, the said power can be invoked. However, an aperture and avenue for interference is a limited one”, it added.
It was further noticed that the amendment was necessitated in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Batliboi Environmental Engineers Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr.(2024) during the pendency of the arbitral proceeding to bring certain facts on record for consideration by the sole arbitrator. “Secondly, Arbitral Tribunals are not bound by the strict rigours of CPC. Even otherwise amendment is permissible at any stage of the proceeding for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties”, the Bench said while placing reliance upon the judgement in Life Insurance Corporation Ltd Vs Sanjeev Builders Pvt Ltd (2022).
The Bench also noted that the nature of the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action or change the nature of lis between the parties, but enabled the Arbitrator to determine the real question in controversy. In light of such factual and legal aspects, the Bench dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Rites Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Supreme BKB DECO JV (Case No.: W. P. (C) No. 311 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate M.S. Mittal, Advocate Srijit Choudhary
Respondent: Advocates Sumeet Gadodia, Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Prakhar Harit, K. Hari, Sanya