The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the statutory period for amending an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and the prohibition against incorporating new grounds that constitute a fresh challenge beyond the prescribed period.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner which has suffered an arbitration award has challenged it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, 'the Arbitration Act') before the District Court. He is aggrieved by the common order passed on his applications (Exhibits 14 and 15) whereby it had prayed for amendment of the application preferred under Section 34 and also had prayed for stay to the execution of the award.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Totala would submit that the award was passed on 31.03.2018. It has been challenged by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The respondent was prosecuting execution of the award which it had filed during the Covid period. No effective hearing in the execution was taking place. While preparing for the submissions on the said application it was realized that some important legal points to challenge the award were not taken and the petitioner is seeking amendment of the application under Section 34. Mr. Totala would submit that an additional ground raising objection regarding neutrality of the arbitrator in the light of the provision of Section 12(5) which was inserted by way of amendment in the year 2015 with effect from 23.10.2015, was sought to be raised. By referring to the decision in the matter of Ellora Paper Mills Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; (2022) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1, he would submit that even in pending arbitration proceeding, the provision has been applied and it is not merely a prospective one. He would further submit that an additional ground to demonstrate fraud was also sought to be inserted. Both these grounds go to the root of the legality of the award and the District Court should have allowed such amendment to be carried out.

4. Mr. Totala would refer to following decisions as well :

(i) PSA SICAL Terminals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin and others; A.I.R. 2021 Supreme Court 4661.

(ii) Bharat Broadband Network Limited Vs. United Telecoms Ltd.; (2019) 5 Supreme Court Cases 755.

(iii) Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Another Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd.; (2020) 20 SCC 760.

(iv) Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Cranes Pvt. Ltd. in C.R.P. (PD) No. 3790 of 2019 decided on 04.01.2022 by the Madras High Court.

(v) TRF Limited Vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited; (2017) 8 Supreme Court Cases 377.

(vi) State of Maharashtra Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Limited; (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 518.

(vii) State of Chattisgarh & Anr. Vs. M/s. Sal Udyog Private Limited; (2022) 2 SCC 275.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Totala also submitted that since admittedly there was a proceeding challenging the award under Section 34 which was pending before the District Court, even the District Court ought to have allowed the application for stay which was preferred under Section 36 (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Act.

6. Mr. Uttarwar learned advocate for the respondent would support the order of the District Judge. He would submit that absolutely new grounds to challenge the award in a pending proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act were being sought to be inserted by way of the proposed amendment. He would submit that it is during execution, even according to the petitioner, that it realized absence of such grounds which clearly demonstrates that under the garb of the proposed amendment absolutely new grounds having no foundation in the application under Section 34 are now being sought to be inserted. This cannot be permitted to happen. He would submit that the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner are not applicable to the fact situation of the matter in hand. There is no illegality in the order and the petition be dismissed.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the decisions cited at the bar and the papers.

8. At the outset it is