1. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties.

2. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel waives service of behalf of respondent.

3. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Company challenges the order dated 07/09/2013 passed by Principal District Judge, Panaji (“PDJ” hereinafter) allowing the application at Exhibit- 20 for amendment of petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

4. The earlier orders passed by this Court showed an effort being made to dispose of the matter finally at the stage of admission. It is not necessary to narrate facts for present adjudication. Pendency of application filed under Section 34 of above mentioned 1996 Act by the present respondent challenging the award dated 28/12/2009 by Arbitrator is not disputed. The application seeking leave to raise additional grounds vide Exhibit-20 came to be filed in the month of January, 2012 i.e. more than two years after the filing of Section 34 application and it has been allowed by the impugned order dated 07/09/2013.

5. It is in this background, Senior Advocate Shri Kantak with Advocate Nadkarni has submitted that totally new ground of bias of Arbitrator is sought to be added after expiry of period of limitation stipulated under Section 34. He submits that outer period envisaged therein is of 90 days and application has been filed more than 2 and half years back. Addition of new ground in such circumstances is not legally permitted. He seeks support from Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported at 2001(2) All MR 322 in the case of “Vastu Finvest & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Gujarat Lease Financing Ltd.” and judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at 2010 (4) SCC 518 in the case of “State of Maharashtra V/s. Hindustan Construction Company Limited.”

6. He has invited attention to consideration of this aspect in the impugned order. According to him, the impugned order erroneously concludes that the amendment is nothing but the elaboration of grounds already raised and, therefore, the learned P.D.J., on account of this impression allowed it. He has invited attention to grounds looked into by learned P.D.J. to submit that said grounds do not support the issue of bias now sought to be added. He contends that reply opposing he prayer for amendment has not been properly appreciated. In the alternate, he also drew support from the paragraph 13 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court mentioned supra to contend that if such ground was already contained in arbitration petition, there was no need to file amendment application. He has invited attention of Court to Provisions of Section 12(3)(a) and (4) of 1996 Act to urge that bias need to be raised at the earliest possible opportunity and before Arbitrator himself. He contends that amendment is sought only by way of an after thought.

7. Senior Advocate Shri Jagtiani with Advocate Shri Jain has supported the order passed by learned P.D.J. He argues that even in arbitration proceedings amendments are to be allowed liberally if other side is not taken by surprise and the contentions raised are supported by material already on record. He submits that here the bias became apparent only after the receipt of copy of award. Use of intemperate words by Arbitrator expose deep rooted venom against the Advocate for respondent and the bias therefore has vitiated entire order and application of mind by learned Arbitrator. The relevant extracts from the award are pressed into service by learned Senior Counsel. He contends that those observations and award of arbitrator are already on record and on the basis of that material, a pure question of law is sought to be urged by the respondent. He has invited attention to paragraphs 11, 12 and grounds S and CC of application under Section 34 to urge that the pleadings therein already show roots for such amendment and hint at bias only. He, therefore, submits that due to limited jurisdiction available under Article