SHAHNAZ HUSSAIN vs SURESH DHANUKA

Judgment text excerpt

$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 01st April, 2025 + CM(M) 600/2025, CM APPL. 18820/2025 & CM APPL. 18821/2025 SHAHNAZ HUSSAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishal Tewari with Mr. Chetan Sinha, Advocate. versus SURESH DHANUKA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ganesh Khemka with Mr. Shreenath A Khemka, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The petitioner is non-claimant before learned Sole Arbitrator and is aggrieved by order dated 04.03.2025 passed by learned Sole Arbitrator whereby his application seeking framing of an additional issue has been dismissed. 2. This Court has gone through the abovesaid order dated 04.03.2025 whereby learned Sole Arbitrator has declined to frame proposed additional issue holding that it did not emanate from the pleadings and also since the parties had, earlier, consented to the issues, which were accordingly framed. Thus, request has not been acceded to for the abovesaid reasons. 3. This Court has also gone through earlier order dated 10.01.2025. At that relevant time, the parties had been given opportunity to comment upon the issues framed by the learned Sole Arbitrator and, after confirming the same, the parties were directed to file their respective list of witnesses, which they even filed. 4. Naturally, merely because of the fact that, earlier, the issues were Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 600/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:02.04.2025 15:23:58 framed on the basis of the consent of the parties, it would not ipso facto mean and indicate that no additional issue can be permitted to be framed. 5. According to non-claimant, there is a requirement of framing a preliminary issue to the following effect: - “Whether the expired goods have any market/commerci