IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-8122-2025(O&M)

Date of Decision:17.11.2025 SAMEER BANSAL AND ANOTHER ....Petitioner(s)

Versus M/S PREMEDIUM PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD AND ANOTHER .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Mahir Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-13) passed by learned Sole Arbitrator, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the statement of claim has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the present case a dispute arose between the parties and consequently, on the basis of an application filed before this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a Sole Arbitrator was appointed on 16.12.2024 vide Annexure P-5. He submitted that thereafter, the arbitration proceedings started and the petitioner filed his statement of claim and the respondents filed their statement of defence before the learned Arbitrator. He submitted that thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the statement of claim before the learned Arbitrator and the aforesaid application was dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-13).

3. Learned counsel submitted that when he filed the claim, the same was of the total amount of Rs. 12,57,158/- and now he is seeking enhancement of the same to Rs. 21,29,648/- by way of amendment of the claim in view of the fact that at the time of filing of the claim some expenses which were incurred on the rented premises were not mentioned in the statement of claim and therefore, he wishes to increase the claim amount, which has been denied by the learned Sole Arbitrator without any cogent reason and therefore, the present petition has been filed. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator may be set aside and he may be permitted to substitute statement of enhanced claim before the learned Sole Arbitrator.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. On the last date of hearing, the following order was passed:-

“On a query being raised to the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the maintainability of the present petition, he prays for some time to address arguments on the maintainability of the present petition.

On his request, adjourned to 17.11.2025.”

6. Today, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while arguing on the maintainability and entertainability of the present petition submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator which has been assailed directly before this Court by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India but the same would be maintainable in certain circumstances. He submitted that the present case falls in the category of exceptional rarity and in case the application of the petitioner for amendment is not allowed, then it would cause miscarriage of justice. He submitted that this Court can always under Article 227 of the Constitution of India exercise its powers for intervention even in the orders passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in facts and circumstances of each and every case. He also referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deep Industries Ltd. Versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and another, (2020) 15 SCC 706 to substantiate his arguments.

7. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator. On the ground of maintainability and entertainability, this Court has already passed a detailed judgment in Jalandhar Improvement Trust and others Versus Shourya Towers Private Limited, CR No.6014 of 2025, decided o