Statements of claim and defence
Section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with statements of claim and defence. Within the period of time agreed upon by the parties or determined by the arbitral tribunal, the claimant shall state the facts supporting his claim, the points at issue and the relief or remedy sought, and the respondent shall state his defence in respect of these particulars, unless the parties ha The Act came into force on 22 Aug 1996.
(1) Within the period of time agreed upon by the parties or determined by the arbitral tribunal, the claimant shall state the facts supporting his claim, the points at issue and the relief or remedy sought, and the respondent shall state his defence in respect of these particulars, unless the parties have otherwise agreed as to the required elements of those statements.
(2) The parties may submit with their statements all documents they consider to be relevant or may add a reference to the documents or other evidence they will submit.
1[(2A) The respondent, in support of his case, may also submit a counterclaim or plead a set-off, which shall be adjudicated upon by the arbitral tribunal, if such counterclaim or set-off falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement.]
(3) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, either party may amend or supplement his claim or defence during the course of the arbitral proceedings, unless the arbitral tribunal considers it inappropriate to allow the amendment or supplement having regard to the delay in making it.
2[(4) The statement of claim and defence under this section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date the arbitrator or all the arbitrators, as the case may be, received notice, in writing of their appointment.]
Section 23, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 2
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs Tuff Drilling Private Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An arbitral tribunal which has terminated proceedings under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to non-filing of claim by the claimant retains jurisdiction to consider an application for recall of the order terminating the proceedings if the claimant shows sufficient cause. The tribunal does not become functus officio after passing an order under Section 25(a). The phrase 'where without showing sufficient cause' in Section 25(a) contemplates that sufficient cause can be shown either before or after the termination order is passed. If sufficient cause is shown, the arbitral tribunal can accept the statement of claim and permit the claimant to file the claim even after the time fixed under Section 23(1) has expired. The principles underlying Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 can be invoked by the arbitral tribunal to recall orders passed under Section 25(a) on sufficient cause being shown. The non-use of the phrase 'the mandate of the arbitral tribunal shall terminate' in Section 25(a), as opposed to its use in Section 32(3), indicates that the legislature intended that if the claimant shows sufficient cause, the proceedings can be re-commenced.
On this section: Requirement for claimant to communicate statement of claim within agreed or tribunal-determined time period
-
Ntpc Limited vs Afcons R. N. Shetty and Co. Pvt. LTD Jv
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Arbitrators do not have unilateral power to determine their own fees. Where parties have fixed fees by agreement or court has fixed fees by order, arbitrators are bound by such fees. Where no agreement or court order exists, arbitrators may fix reasonable fees only after transparent consultation with parties at preliminary stage, and such fees are subject to court review for reasonableness under Section 39. The Fourth Schedule is binding on ad hoc arbitrations post-Amendment Act 2019. The term 'sum in dispute' in Fourth Schedule refers to aggregate of claim and counter-claim. The ceiling of Rs. 30 lakhs in Serial No. 6 applies to total fee, not just variable component. The fee is per individual arbitrator, not per tribunal. Arbitrators cannot charge separate fees for claims and counter-claims; they must charge single fee based on aggregate sum in dispute.
On this section: Counter-claims - respondent may submit counter-claim if it falls within scope of arbitration agreement
-
Dani Wooltex Corporation vs Sheil Properties Private Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power under clause (c) of subsection (2) of Section 32 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be exercised only when the Arbitral Tribunal records its satisfaction based on material on record that the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible. Abandonment of a claim can be a ground to invoke this power, but abandonment cannot be readily inferred. Abandonment can be express or implied, but implied abandonment requires admitted or proved facts that are so clinching and convincing that the only inference which can be drawn is of abandonment. Mere failure of a claimant to request the Arbitral Tribunal to fix a date for hearing, per se, is no ground to conclude that the proceedings have become unnecessary or that the claim has been abandoned. It is the Arbitral Tribunal's duty to fix meetings and hearing dates, and it cannot abdicate this duty by requiring parties to request such dates. The Arbitral Tribunal cannot exercise its power under Section 32(2)(c) casually or without proper factual foundation, as doing so would defeat the very object of the Arbitration Act.
On this section: Timelines for filing statements of claim and defence; subsection (4) provides six-month deadline from appointment
-
Dinesh Prasad vs Nitesh Kumar Sharma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is filed during a period when the Supreme Court has extended the limitation period through a Suo Motu order (as was done during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 15, 2020 to February 28, 2022), the trial court must take judicial notice of such extension order and cannot hold the complaint to be barred by limitation if it was filed within the extended period. The trial court's failure to consider such a binding Supreme Court order and acquitting the accused solely on the ground of limitation, without examining the merits of the case, constitutes an error of law that warrants interference by the appellate court.
On this section: Limitation periods affected by Supreme Court's extension order during COVID-19 pandemic
-
The Messiah Multipurpose Co-operative Credit Society LTD vs Adarsh Shet Mayekar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is delayed due to circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown (specifically the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022), and the Supreme Court has extended the limitation period for filing such complaints, the court shall condone the delay as the applicant has shown sufficient cause, provided the delay falls within the extended limitation period prescribed by the Supreme Court.
On this section: Referenced in Supreme Court directive regarding exclusion of pandemic period from limitation calculations
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… ON 11.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..2.. 2024:KER:69350 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are aggrieved by the non-consideration of arbitration petition filed by them under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 and under Section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by the respondent No.1 against the award passed by the respondent No.2. Having heard Sri.P.C.Muhammed Noushiq, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.B.S.Syamanthak, the learned Government Pleader, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the …
-
… He states that the said arbitration petition was filed by the Petitioner without appreciating that the reliefs sought against Respondent No. 3 are not arbitrable. He states that the Petitioner has now filed an appropriate application under Section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the arbitration proceedings, for amending the said petition and withdrawing the reliefs sought against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the present proceedings. He states that non-disclosure of the filing of the arbitration proceedings in the writ petition was unintentional …
Questions about Section 23
What have the courts held on Section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs Tuff Drilling Private Limited (20 Sep 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Requirement for claimant to communicate statement of claim within agreed or tribunal-determined time period. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2017 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Arbitration Act 23, section 23 Arbitration Act, section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. People searching for it also type arbitration act section 23 4 and arbitration act section 23 counter claim. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs Tuff Drilling Private Limited (20 Sep 2017).
What should I read with Section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act come into force?
Section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cited as Arbitration Act 23, came into force on 22 Aug 1996, having been enacted on 16 Aug 1996. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement1029 words
- 11. Appointment of arbitrators1027 words
- 34. Application for setting aside arbitral awards861 words
- 2. Definitions732 words
- 29A. Time limit for arbitral award635 words
- 57. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards519 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.