1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3671 OF 2008 (M/s. B.P. Byramji & Co. & Ors. vs. Union of India) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. OCTOBER 08, 2008. Heard Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Gordey with Shri Lambat, learned counsel for the respondent. By placing reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Nasir Chhannumal Shaikh , reported at 2005 (2) Mh. L.J. 1031, Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel argues that as no application to set aside the award was not filed within 30 days, the Court below ought to have proceeded under Section 17 to make award, rule of the Court. He contends that objections as raised are not permissible in the eyes of law at this stage, when the proceedings are only pending for making award rule of the Court. He further points out that this material is sought to be brought on record after 20 years though on earlier two occasions applications for amendment were made. He points out that the 2 evidence of present petitioner is already over and also respondent has filed affidavits of their examination-in-chief on record. He, therefore, contends that at this stage permitting such amendment is not within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Shri Gordey, learned counsel, on the other hand, argues that only plea, after accepting the case of present respondent that some records were traced out, is allowed to be raised. He argues that because of this, only amendment has been allowed and whether the facts pleaded can be looked into by the trial Court while making award rule of the Court or not, correctness of those facts or then genuineness of documents sought to be produced, are the issues still not considered or looked into by the trial Court. He contends that arguments of the petitioner in present matter are, therefore, premature and also misconceived. According to him, what is being pointed out is suppression by the petitioner of certain vital material before the Arbitrator and also before the Court while requesting for making the award rule of the Court. The perusal of proposed amendment reveals that the respondent has pointed out that certain vital material which it has discovered later 3 on was not brought to the notice of the Arbitrator by the present petitioner and thus there was a fraud or mischief which has resulted into passing of award. After noticing the fact that the respondent is a Government entity, the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, has allowed that amendment. It is also clear that all objections including arguments raised by Shri Shrivastava are open for consideration at appropriate stage before the said Court. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by Shri Shrivastava does not consider such suppression or case of fraud. However, at this stage, I am not required to find out whether the law laid down therein can be invoked and applied to present facts. The trial Court can look into that aspect also. I, therefore, find that no case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.