$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 03^rd December, 2024 Date of Decision: 09th December, 2024 + ARB. A. (COMM.) 63/2024 & I.As. 46995-96/2024 RAILTEL CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Vashisht, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Kumar Singh and Mr.

Vedansh Vashisht, Advocates versus PRIMATEL FIBCOM LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Mr. Adhish Srivastva, Mr. Hargun Singh Kalra, Ms. Akshita Nigam, Mr. Navdeep Jain and Mr. Nirmit Bhalla, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 37(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act of 1996’) impugning the ‘procedural order no. 5’ dated 18.11.2024 (‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in Case Ref No. DIAC/8149/04-24.

2. In the impugned order the learned Sole Arbitrator dealt with two (2) applications filed by the Appellant herein (i.e., respondent in the arbitral proceedings) on 11.11.2024.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA ARB. A. (COMM.) 63/2024 Page 1 of 17

2.1 The first application was filed by the Appellant praying for fixation of a procedure and schedule to be followed by the parties. In this application, the Appellant prayed for leading oral evidence and stated that the issues cannot be decided on the basis of documents alone.

2.2 The second application was filed by the Appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing its Counter-Claim and for taking on record the Counter-Claim filed along with the application.

2.3 The learned Sole Arbitrator disallowed the first application on the ground that the timeline of the proceedings to be followed by the parties has already been decided through various consent orders passed by him and that no new procedure can be established at the stage of final hearing. The rejection of the first application is not a subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

2.4 The second application has been dismissed by the learned Sole Arbitrator on the ground that the Counter-Claim sought to be brought on record is filed at a belated stage when the Statement of Claim (‘SOC’), Statement of Defence (‘SOD’) and Rejoinder has already been filed and the matter is listed for addressing final arguments. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:

“1. Today the case was fixed for final arguments but Mr. Manish Vashisht, Sr. Ld. Counsel for the respondent is not available. However, he has sent his junior Mr. Jaivardhan Jeph, Advocate who came late by half an hour.

2. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent Mr. Jaivardhan Jeph has drawn the attention to respondent's applications which were sent only on email and no hard copy was supplied.

…

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA ARB. A. (COMM.) 63/2024 Page 2 of 17

6. The second application moved by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent pertains to counter claim along with the prayer for condonation of delay.

7. When the case is ripe for the final hearing after receiving the Statement of Claim, Statement of Defence and Rejoinder, so this belated application has no merit and dismissed.

8. With the consent of both the parties, case is adjourned to 10.12.2024 to 13.12.2024 at 2.00 p.m. till 5.30 p.m. on all the dates physically at DIAC. On the request of Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, the dates fixed for 19th and 20th November, 2024 are hereby cancelled.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Brief facts leading to the initiation of the present proceedings

3. With the execution of the ‘definitive agreement’ dated 27.02.2018 between the Appellant and the Respondent herein the Respondent was selected as a System Integrator and Implementation Partner under a back-to- back payment structure with ‘M/S Raj COMP Info Services Limited (RISL)’

i.e., the end customer on behalf of the Appellant.

3.1 The said end customer raised issues with respect to the deficiencies in the services rendered by the R