Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, Ms. Lata Walia and Mr. Reenu Walia, Advocates v. MS GAURI SHANKAR RICE MIILL AND ANR

$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13746/2025, CM APPL.56393/2025 M/S. NATIONAL COMMODITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MS NATIONAL COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, Ms. Lata Walia and Mr. Reenu Walia, Advocates. versus MS GAURI SHANKAR RICE MIILL AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 25.09.2025 O R D E R 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an order dated 25.06.2025 passed in the arbitral proceedings bearing case reference no. 143/2021, whereby, the petitioner / claimant’s application seeking to place certain additional documents on record before the Arbitral Tribunal has been dismissed/ rejected by the learned Sole Arbitrator. 2. The background of the matter is that certain dispute/s arose between the petitioner/claimant and respondents in relation to a Milling Agreement dated 19.01.2016 executed between them. In the year 2021, pursuant to the appointment of the learned Sole Arbitrator by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as “the A&C Act”), arbitral proceedings commenced for adjudication of the disputes between the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2025 at 12:57:19 parties. Subsequently, in the said arbitral proceedings, the petitioner/claimant preferred an application dated 17.10.2024 under Section 19 read with 23 of the A&C Act for bringing on record certain additional documents. The said application was however dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.06.2025 by the learned Sole Arbitrator inter-alia observing as under:- “14. This Tribunal is of the view that the Claimant has failed to show sufficient cause for not filing these documents with the Statement of Claim dated 10th February, 2022 or with the evidence by way of affidavit dated 5th April, 2023 or with the application dated 5th April, 2023 whereby the Claimant sought permission to place the additional documents on record. The justification given by the Claimant in the application that these documents were at the Gazipur Office of the Claimant whereas the Statement of Claim was filed by the Gurugram Office, is not satisfactory. No justification has been given in the application as to why the documents could not be brought on record earlier. If the Claimant could requisition and file the other relevant documents with the Statement of Claim and the application for additional document dated 5th15. This case is at the stage of final hearing. Even if the application is allowed and the additional documents are taken on record, the documents will have to be proved by leading additional evidence. The leading of additional evidence at this stage will further delay the matter. April, 2023, the reason given by the Claimant that these documents were with the Gazipur Office does not reflects sufficient cause, rather it reflects negligence on part of the Claimant. There is merit in the Respondent's objection that the Claimant is attempting to fill up the gaps in the evidence after the closure of the evidence and will cause serious prejudice to the Respondent. 16. This Tribunal is not satisfied with the justification given by the Claimant for filing the documents at this belated stage. The leading of additional evidence at this stage shall cause serious prejudice to the Respondents. 17. This Tribunal is of the view that the Claimant cannot be permitted to file the additional documents at this stage. 18. The application is dismissed.” 3. The primary grievance canvassed by the learned counsel for the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2025 at 12:57:19 petitioner is that non-consideration of the documents results in gross denial of principles of natural justice and prevents the petitioner from cogently demonstrating the merits of its claims in the ongoing arbitral proceedings. 4. However, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Sole Arbitrator has recorded cogent and clear findings to the effect that the petitioner/claimant failed to show sufficient cause for not filing the concerned documents at an appropriate stage of the arbitral proceedings. This Court finds no basis to interfere with the same in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially considering that the scope of interference with order/s passed by an arbitral tribunal, in these proceedings, is extremely circumscribed. This position has been reiterated in a catena of cases.15. Needless to say, the petitioner would be entitled to raise appropriate contentions at the stage of Section 34 of the A&C Act, with regard to the conduct of arbitral proceedings, inter-alia the contention that arbitral proceedings are vitiated on the ground of denial of principles of natural justice (on account of not taking the concerned documents on record). 6. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.06.2025, passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator. 7. However, considering the peculiar circumstances emphasised by learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the learned Sole Arbitrator seeking permission to place the concerned documents on record. Learned counsel on behalf of the 1 Bhaven Constructions vs Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and Anr. (2022) 1 SCC 75; Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. vs Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 319; Surender Kumar Singhal and Ors. vs Arun Kumar Bhalotia and Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3708 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2025 at 12:57:19 petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is willing to bear the extra costs/fee that may be entailed on account of the additional time/hearing consumed in evidentiary hearing process in the eventuality of the documents being taken on record. 8. The petitioner is at liberty to urge the aforesaid aspects before the learned Sole Arbitrator. In case the said documents are taken on record, the same shall be subject to payment of additional arbitrator’s fee and costs, which shall be duly paid/borne by the petitioner. The Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) is directed to facilitate the same. 9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2025/r