The rejection of an application to submit additional documents post-cross-examination in arbitration proceedings is valid when procedural fairness is upheld and no substantial injustice arises.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. This petition has been filed challenging an order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in the matter of Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited Vs. East Godavari Breweries Private Limited & Ors. Further, direction has been sought from the Arbitral Tribunal to take on record the Financial Statements of Respondent No.1 filed by the petitioners along with the application bearing No.Nil dated 10.07.2025 at Annexure-J.

3. The petitioners are the respondents in the aforesaid arbitration proceedings. The respondent No.2/East Godavari Breweries Private Limited, is stated to be undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution proceedings. A Brewing Agreement was executed between SABMiller India Limited (now called Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd) and the respondent No.2 that is East Godavari Breweries Private Limited. On 06.02.2015, for setting up of a brewery in Chepuru Village, Andhra Pradesh, for manufacturing and sale of bottled beers of the following brands-Haywards 5000, Knock Out, Foster's, Royal Challenge ("Core Brands"). The Brewing Agreement was further modified on 08.05.2015. An advance sum was paid to the respondent No.2, who was required to obtain licenses/permission and set up the brewery.

4. On 11.11.2016, on account of SABMiller's acquisition by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 was asked to stop working on the project until further instructions. Accordingly, all ongoing operations were paused. After more than 20 months, on 03.08.2018, the respondent No.1 issued a notice for termination of the Brewing Agreement to the respondent No.2 and demanded the return of the advanced amount paid under the Brewing Agreement along with an interest of 18%. The respondent No.2 denied the allegation made in the letter of termination by way of a reply dated 06.09.2018 and called upon the respondent No.1 to reimburse the expenditure incurred by the respondent No.2.

5. A notice of invocation of guarantee dated 23.08.2018 was issued to the petitioners on the allegation that petitioners had agreed to guarantee the repayment of advance, the alleged guarantee was denied. Thereafter, the Arbitration was invoked under the Brewing Agreement by the respondent No.1 against the respondent No.2, and the petitioners, though not being signatories/parties to the Brewing Agreement, came to be added as parties to the arbitration proceedings in their capacity as alleged guarantors.

6. In proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by an order dated 31.03.2021, arbitrators were appointed by this Court. This stood constituted with effect from 01.05.2021. On account of the demise of an arbitrator, another arbitrator was appointed as the Presiding Arbitrator.

7. The statement of claim was filed on 30.06.2021 along with 32 supporting documents. It is alleged that thereafter, without the leave of the Arbitral Tribunal, on 20.08.2021 two additional documents were placed on record. Lastly, on 03.09.2021, the respondent No.1- claimant once again filed 4 additional documents in the nature of financial statements of the respondent No.2, without leave of the Tribunal. The respondent No.2 filed a counter claim and the petitioners filed their statement of defence. The pleadings were completed on 20.11.2021 and thereafter, the Arbitral Tribunal framed issues on 12.07.2022 which were modified by way of order of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 03.08.2022.

8. In the meanwhile, an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravathi, admitted an application unde