An amendment to introduce a counter claim in arbitration proceedings can be denied if filed after the closure of evidence, balancing the need for justice and procedural efficiency.

Judgment :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the respondent in an Arbitration Proceeding being A.P. No. 146 of 2023 and is directed against an order dated June 26, 2025 passed by the learned arbitrator.

2. By the order impugned, the application for amendment of the Statement of Defence to introduce the prayer for counter claim stood rejected.

3. On an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the “1996 Act”) being filed, a former Judge of this Hon’ble Court was appointed as the sole Arbitrator.

4. The opposite party herein filed its Statement of Claim (for short “SoC”) and the petitioner filed its Statement of Defence (for short “SoD”). The claimant witness no. 1 adduced evidence and was discharged. Thereafter, the Affidavit of Evidence (for short “AoE”) was filed by the respondent/petitioner. Evidence of the respondent witness no. 1 was closed. Thereafter, the respondent/petitioner filed an application for recall of the respondent witness no. 1 which was allowed and the examination of respondent witness no. 1 was fixed on March 13, 2025. On that date i.e., on March 13, 2025 the respondent/petitioner filed an application for amendment of the SoD. The learned Tribunal rejected the application for amendment of SoD by order dated June 26, 2025, which is under challenge in this civil revision application.

5. Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein filed its evidence in the form of an affidavit wherein a repayment schedule has been set out wherefrom it would be evident that there exists no dues from the petitioner herein on account of closure of the loan account. He further contended that the petitioners herein have consistently made payments towards the multiple installments under each facility as defined in the master facility agreement but the petitioners have failed to provide a detailed statement of accounts which would render adjudication in respect of the loan arbitration incomplete and unsubstantiated. He further contended that the necessary documents have been filed along with affidavit in chief but through inadvertence the petitioners have not lodged any counter claim along with SoD. He contended that the petitioners are only seeking to introduce the counter claim as the documentary evidence in support of such counter claim has already been on record. He submitted that the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversy between the parties in the arbitration proceedings. Mr. Ratnanko Banerji further contended that Section 23 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows a party to amend the statement of claim or defence during the course of the arbitral proceedings. He further contended that there is no embargo upon the learned Arbitrator to allow the application for amendment after the commencement of trial as (3) of the 1996 Act does not put any embargo upon the learned Arbitrator to allow an amendment after commencement of trial. Mr. Ratnanko Banerji learned Senior Advocate placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr. /b>. reported at (2022) 16 SCC 1 in support of his contention that the prayer for amendment is to be allowed if the sam