1 2025:CGHC:20801 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 527 of 2021 1 - General Manager, Chhattisgarh Samvaad, Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - M/s Chhattisgarh Packagers Pvt. Ltd. Address- 4/1, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Shobhit Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.05.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.9.2021 passed by the learned Commercial Court in MJC No.4 of 2021, whereby an application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was rejected. SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 2. The facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act, 1996’) before the learned Commercial Court challenging the award dated 20.2.2020 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEF Council). The application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 was moved on various grounds. The respondent filed a reply to the said application. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC read with Sections 141 & 151 of CPC whereby the amendment was proposed to the effect that although conciliation proceedings were claimed to have been conducted and failed before the initiation of the arbitration proceedings but the same is not reflected in the order-sheets of the Council. The petitioner contended that such conciliation proceedings are mandatory. 3. The respondent filed a reply to the amendment application categorically stating that in paragraph 1 of the application filed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, the petitioner has clearly pleaded that the parties explored the possibility of the settlement during conciliation proceedings and upon its failure, the arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSME Act were initiated. It is also stated that the petitioner can not be permitted to withdraw admissions made in the application moved under Section 34 of the 3 Act, 1996. The Learned Commercial Court vide order dated 7.9.2021, rejected the application on the ground that the application for amendment is barred by limitation and withdrawal of the admission is not permissible under the law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the learned Commercial Court committed an error of law in rejecting the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC on the ground of limitation. He would further submit the issue of limitation was wrongly applied by the learned Court below and in this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs. Hindustan Construction Company Limited, (2010) 4 SCC 518. He would further contend that no conciliation proceeding was conducted by the Council, and this fact is evident from the order- sheets of the Council. He would also submit that these facts were not within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, and were discovered only after obtaining the certified copy of the order- sheets and immediately thereafter, the amendment application was filed. He would further argue that the learned Commercial Court committed an error of law in rejecting the amendment application. -4- 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that in paragraph 1 of the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that the proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSME Act were conducted, though no settlement could be reached and thereafter proceedings under Section 18(3) of the Act, 2006 were initiated. He would further submit that the amendment application of the petitioner would be a deviation from earlier pleadings. He would also submit that the application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was not rejected solely on the ground of limitation but the learned Court below observed that the petitioner cannot be permitted to withdraw an admission already made in the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1, while dealing with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, held in concluding para 71.3.2 that an application for amendment should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided that the amendment 5 does not result in injustice to the other side; that by such amendment, the party does not seek to withdraw any clear admission which confers a right on the other side, and that the amendment does not introduce a time-barred claim, which would divest the other party of a valuable accrued right. Para 71.3.2 is reproduced herein below: “71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).” 8. In the present case, after the conclusion of the proceedings under the provisions of Section 18(2) of the MSME Act as pleaded by the petitioner in the application moved under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, arbitration proceedings were initiated by the Council according to the provisions of Section 18(3) of the MSME Act, 2006. The petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC on the ground that the order-sheets of the MSME Council would show that no proceedings under Section 18(2) of the Act, 2006, were actually conducted by the Council. This is not a case where the petitioner was proceeded ex parte or was denied an opportunity of being heard before the Council. The order-sheets -6- would show that the petitioner actively participated in the entire proceedings before the Council. In the application moved under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, it is categorically stated that the conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the Act, 2006 were conducted but failed, and thereafter, arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the Act, 2006 were initiated by the Council. By way of amendment, the petitioner has made an unsuccessful attempt to deviate from its earlier pleadings made in the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, which is not permissible under the law. The application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was not rejected solely on the grounds of limitation. Learned Commercial Court rejected the application on additional grounds that the proposed amendment would amount to withdrawal of admission. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner says that the application for amendment can be presented beyond the period of 30 days after the expiry of three months, however, the finding recorded by the learned Commercial Court with regard to the issue of limitation appears to be erroneous. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that the amendment proposed by the petitioner would amount to the withdrawal of an admission made in the application moved under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Commercial Court has 7 rightly rejected the application for amendment. 10. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi