M/S ORCHID INTERNATIONAL vs M/S GOYAL AND GOEL STAINLESS STEEL & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 315/2025, CM APPL. 72382/2025 & CM APPL. 72383/2025 M/S ORCHID INTERNATIONAL .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bharatt Groverr and Mr. Charit Gagar, Advocates. versus M/S GOYAL AND GOEL STAINLESS STEEL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Date of Decision: 19th November, 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA JUDGEMENT TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J: (ORAL) 1. This is an appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1996 Act’) seeking setting aside of the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial) in the matter of ‘M/s Orchid International vs. M/s Goyal and Goel Stainless Steel & Anr’ bearing Case No.OMP (COMM.) 90/2024 whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the 1996 Act was dismissed on the ground of being devoid of merits. 2. Mr. Bharatt Groverr, learned counsel for the appellant, while referring to the impugned judgment, particularly para 6, states that the issue regarding the disputes between the partners of the claimant/respondent no.1 was not considered. He further submits that the legal issue raised by the appellant, in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO 315/2025 Page 1 of 9 By:YASHRAJ Signing Date:21.11.2025 17:17:50 that, the claimant/respondent no.1 is not a registered partnership firm and that it had no locus standi to file the claim was not at all considered. He also submits that the ledger along with the delivery proof were not placed before the arbitrator, and thus, the arbitrator could not have concluded that a sum of Rs.7,900,061/- as the principal amount, was due and payable to the claimant/respondent no.1 by the appellant. 3. He submits that apart from the aforesaid issue, the content