Calcutta HC – Arbitration – Amendment must be timely & justified

Judgment dated 1.9.2025 of the High Court of Calcutta (AS) in C.O. 2449 of 2025 of Gayatri Granites and others Vs. Srei Equipment Finance Ltd.
Section 23(2A) of AA & Order 8 Rules 6A & 9 CPC – Amendment of SoD for Counter Claim
After the evidence affidavit was filed by the petitioner and the evidence of respondent witness no.1 was closed, the petitioner filed an application to recall witness no.1. This was allowed and the examination was fixed on 13.3.2025.
However, on 13.3.2025, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of SOD and to file counter claim.
By the Order dated 26.6.2025, the Arbitrator rejected the application for of the petitioner – respondent amendment of the Statement of Defence to add prayer for counter claim.
HELD that a counter claim can be set up along with WS or by way of subsequent pleading even after filing of WS. The cause of action for such counter claim has to accrue either before or after filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limit of giving defence has expired.
There is no time limit either in Order 8 Rule 6A of CPC or section 23 Arbitration Act for filing counter claim. However, the counter claim in arbitration proceedings shall not be filed after the issues are framed. In exceptional cases only , the filing of counter claim may be permitted after commencement of recording of evidence of claimant.
Admittedly the amendment is not based on any subsequent event which took place after commencement of trial. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Therefore, the Arbitrator was right in rejecting the application for amendment.
