( 1 ) REJECTING the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CP. C. seeking amendment of the main petition under Sections 33, 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act for converting the same into a regular suit for the recovery of money, the learned Judge held that so far as treatment of an application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act as a suit, sub-section 2 thereof itself provides numbering of such applications and their registration as suits. However, as observed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of S. P. Consolidated Engineering Co. v. Union of India the wording of sub-section 20 (2) is that the "application shall be numbered and registered as a suit" does suggest that it is not a suit in the fullest sense of term (1933 Peshwar 18 and 1914 Sind 122 also referred to ).

( 2 ) AFTER noticing the observation of the Judicial Committee in the case of Hansraj Gupta v. Dehra Dun Massoorie Electric Transway Co. 1933 P. C. 63 and that of the S. C. in the case of Maharana Bhagwat Singh Babadur of Udaipur v. The State of Rajasthan AIR 1964 S. C. 444, it was held that apart from the fact that the proceedings under the Arbitration Act could be basically treated as a suit, their scope and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document