GROSON ENGINEERS vs M/S RAJIV AGGARWAL & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 03.02.2025 + W.P.(C) 1347/2025 GROSON ENGINEERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate. versus M/S RAJIV AGGARWAL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the orders dated 09.05.2024 and 31.12.2024 passed by the learned Arbitrator, who is seized of the arbitral proceedings between the parties. 2. The arbitral proceedings are ongoing under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The arbitral proceedings have been occasioned on account of non-payment/ non-clearance of the bills of the petitioner, raised upon the respondent. 3. An order dated 09.05.2024 came to be passed by the learned Arbitrator dismissing the petitioner’s application for “disclosure of documents in the possession of the respondent”. Vide order dated 31.12.2024, the learned Arbitrator dismissed the petitioner’s application seeking permission to call additional witness. 4. It is a settled law that courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 1347/2025 Page 1 of 7 By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:07.02.2025 00:14:09 India can interfere with the arbitral process only when the circumstances are exceptional or perverse. The Supreme Court in Bhaven Construction vs Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and Anr., (2022) 1 SCC 75 while limiting judicial interference under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India to ‘exceptional rarity’ held as under: “12. We need to note that the Arbitration Act is a code in itself. This phrase is not merely perfunctory, but has definite legal consequences. One such con