Chattisgarh High Court
General Manager vs M/S Chhattisgarh Packagers Pvt. Ltd on 6 May, 2025
1
SMT
NIRMALA
RAO
2025:CGHC:20801
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 527 of 2021
1 - General Manager, Chhattisgarh Samvaad, Sector-19, North Block,
Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - M/s Chhattisgarh Packagers Pvt. Ltd. Address- 4/1, Nehru Nagar,
Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Shri Shobhit Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent : Shri Avinash Chand Sahu,
Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
06.05.2025
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.9.2021 passed by
the learned Commercial Court in MJC No.4 of 2021, whereby an
application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC
was rejected.
-2-
2. The facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner
filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act, 1996’) before the learned
Commercial Court challenging the award dated 20.2.2020 passed
by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEF
Council). The application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 was
moved on various grounds. The respondent filed a reply to the
said application. During the pendency of the proceedings, the
petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC read
with Sections 141 & 151 of CPC whereby the amendment was
proposed to the effect that although conciliation proceedings were
claimed to have been conducted and failed before the initiation of
the arbitration proceedings but the same is not reflected in the
order-sheets of the Council. The petitioner contended that such
conciliation proceedings are mandatory.
3. The respondent filed a reply to the amendment application
categorically stating that in paragraph 1 of the application filed
under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, the petitioner has clearly
pleaded that the parties explored the possibility of the settlement
during conciliation proceedings and upon its failure, the arbitration
proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSME Act were initiated.
It is also stated that the petitioner can not be permitted to withdraw
admissions made in the application moved under Section 34 of the
3
Act, 1996. The Learned Commercial Court vide order dated
7.9.2021, rejected the application on the ground that the
application for amendment is barred by limitation and withdrawal
of the admission is not permissible under the law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the learned
Commercial Court committed an error of law in rejecting the
application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC on the ground of
limitation. He would further submit the issue of limitation was
wrongly applied by the learned Court below and in this regard, he
has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs.
Hindustan Construction Company Limited, (2010) 4 SCC 518.
He would further contend that no conciliation proceeding was
conducted by the Council, and this fact is evident from the order-
sheets of the Council. He would also submit that these facts were
not within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing the
application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, and were
discovered only after obtaining the certified copy of the order-
sheets and immediately thereafter, the amendment application
was filed. He would further argue that the learned Commercial
Court committed an error of law in rejecting the amendment
application.
-4-
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
He would submit that in paragraph 1 of the application under
Section 34 of the Act, 1996, the petitioner has specifically pleaded
that the proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSME Act were
conducted, though no settlement could be reached and thereafter
proceedings under Section 18(3) of the Act, 2006 were initiated.
He would further submit that the amendment application of the
petitioner would be a deviation from earlier pleadings. He would
also submit that the application moved by the petitioner under
Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was not rejected solely on the ground of
limitation but the learned Court below observed that the petitioner
cannot be permitted to withdraw an admission already made in the
application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. He would contend
that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
documents present on the record.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Life Insurance
Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and
Another, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1, while dealing with the
provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, held in concluding para
71.3.2 that an application for amendment should be allowed to
avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided that the amendment
5
does not result in injustice to the other side; that by such
amendment, the party does not seek to withdraw any clear
admission which confers a right on the other side, and that the
amendment does not introduce a time-barred claim, which would
divest the other party of a valuable accrued right. Para 71.3.2 is
reproduced herein below:
“71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to
the other side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking
amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear
admission made by the party which confers a right
on the other side and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time barred
claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a
valuable accrued right (in certain situations).”
8. In the present case, after the conclusion of the proceedings under
the provisions of Section 18(2) of the MSME Act as pleaded by the
petitioner in the application moved under Section 34 of the Act,
1996, arbitration proceedings were initiated by the Council
according to the provisions of Section 18(3) of the MSME Act,
2006. The petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17
of CPC on the ground that the order-sheets of the MSME Council
would show that no proceedings under Section 18(2) of the Act,
2006, were actually conducted by the Council. This is not a case
where the petitioner was proceeded ex parte or was denied an
opportunity of being heard before the Council. The order-sheets
-6-
would show that the petitioner actively participated in the entire
proceedings before the Council. In the application moved under
Section 34 of the Act, 1996, it is categorically stated that the
conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the Act, 2006 were
conducted but failed, and thereafter, arbitration proceedings under
Section 18(3) of the Act, 2006 were initiated by the Council. By
way of amendment, the petitioner has made an unsuccessful
attempt to deviate from its earlier pleadings made in the
application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, which is not
permissible under the law. The application moved by the petitioner
under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was not rejected solely on the
grounds of limitation. Learned Commercial Court rejected the
application on additional grounds that the proposed amendment
would amount to withdrawal of admission. The judgment relied
upon by the petitioner says that the application for amendment can
be presented beyond the period of 30 days after the expiry of
three months, however, the finding recorded by the learned
Commercial Court with regard to the issue of limitation appears to
be erroneous.
9. Taking into consideration the fact that the amendment proposed by
the petitioner would amount to the withdrawal of an admission
made in the application moved under Section 34 of the Act, 1996,
this Court is of the opinion that the learned Commercial Court has
7
rightly rejected the application for amendment.
10. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
11. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi