BEFORE THE HON’BLE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL

COMPRISING OF
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE (RETD.) N.PAUL VASANTHKUMAR
ARBITRATION CASE NO. 114/2019
BETWEEN

BREN CORPORATION … CLAIMANT

AND

N.S.NAGARAJ REDDY … RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS FILED BY RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICATION UNDER

ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC FILED BY CLAIMANT

The Respondent most respectfully states and submits as under:

1. That the Claimant has preferred the present application to amend the

‘Cause Title’ in the Statement of Claim on the ground that (1) the name

of the proprietor was inadvertently left out and (2) that the proposed

amendment would not change the nature of the case or affect the stage

at the which the matters stand.

2. The Claimant has stated that the name of the proprietor was reflected

in the cause title in the proceedings instituted for constitution of this

Hon’ble Tribunal (CMP 101/2017) however, that out of inadvertence,

the same was left out.

3. It is submitted that the Respondent has objected to the maintainability

of the proceedings on hand as averred in the Statement of Defence filed

by the Respondent. The Claimant was well aware of the contention of

the Respondent as regards this issue. The Claimant even had an

opportunity to respond to the same by way of its rejoinder, which was

duly undertaken. The Respondent had deemed it fit that the address

and name of the proprietor was not necessary as averred in the

Rejoinder (at paragraph 27).

4. Consequently, this Hon’ble Tribunal had framed ‘Issues’ in this regard

as regard maintainability of the Statement of Claim and the consequent

proceedings on hand. The parties have even led evidence in support of

their contention. The ‘Claimant Witness-1’ in her evidence, even

deposed that arraying the name the sole proprietor was not necessary.

5. Therefore, the Claimant is merely attempting to remedy an illegality, the

gravity of which weighed the Claimant down during the course of

arguments. The averment of the Claimant that the name of the

proprietor did not reflect due to inadvertence is mired in falsehood and

deserves to be dismissed in limine. It is in fact, a deliberate action of the

Claimant to not remedy the cause title, since the Claimant was

possessed with full and complete knowledge regarding the same and

did not choose to effectuate an amendment hitherto.

6. It is submitted that the amendment sought to be carried out in fact

appears to be an afterthought and goes to the root of the matter. The

Claimant by way of this amendment is in fact attempting to alter the

nature of claim which ought not to be maintainable. It is pertinent to

note that the Respondent has contended that the proceedings on hand

would itself not be maintainable (and also placed necessary citations in

its support) and therefore the amendment on hand cannot be permitted,

for the same ought to be construed as an attempt to remedy an

incurable defect. The Claimant cannot be permitted to amend the

‘Cause Title’ as such a belated stage when the matter is posted for

‘Arguments’ when it in fact was possessed with umpteen opportunities

to amend the same.

Wherefore, the application be dismissed in the interest of justice and equity.

Bengaluru
Date: Advocate for Respondent