$~100 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 766/2026 TAURANT PROJECTS LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raman Gandhi and Ms. Jyoti Nambiar, Advs.

versus GAIL INDIA LTD .....Respondent Through: Ratan Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhilesh Krishnan, Ms. Ritika Priya and Mr. Siddharth Singh Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 20.01.2026 CM APPL. 3734/2026

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 766/2026 and CM APPL. 3733/2026

3. The petitioner seeks to challenge the procedural order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Sole Arbitrator (hereinafter ‘the Arbitral Tribunal’). By way of the impugned order, the Arbitral Tribunal has disposed of the applications filed by the petitioner on 21.11.2025.

4. The first application was to seek leave of the Arbitral Tribunal to place/ bring on record the additional documents of 1040 pages. The second application was filed for grant of two weeks’ time to the petitioner to place on record additional affidavit of evidence of CW-1, Dinesh Lalwani.

5. The facts would indicate that the similar prayer sought by the petitioner, was earlier dismissed by the Arbitral Tribunal, vide its order dated 18.08.2025, on the ground that the production of the documents was not justified at that stage, nor was appropriate after four days of cross- examination of the petitioner’s witnesses. It was recorded that petitioner should not be allowed to violate the procedure contemplated by the Tribunal in its procedural order. The attempt of the petitioner was found to fill up the gaps and lacuna in the evidence.

6. The petitioner, thereafter, filed another application on 03.09.2025 to seek modification of the order dated 18.08.2025. Even this application was dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2025. Both the orders were challenged before this Court in a writ petition bearing no. W.P.(C) 16084/2025. This Court vide order dated 17.10.2025, disposed of the petition taking note of the narrow scope of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India qua Arbitral proceedings. The Court had considered the principles laid down in the cases of Bhaven Constructions vs Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and Anr, (20221 SCC 75 2025);, Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. vs Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Ors., (SCC OnLine Delhi 319); and Surender Kumar Singhal and Ors. vs Arun Kumar Bhalotia and Ors.

7. While dismissing the writ petition, the liberty was granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal seeking leave to file additional document/evidence. Paragraph no. 7 of the said order is extracted as under:

“7. In the circumstances, the present petition is dismissed, while granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the learned Sole Arbitrator, seeking leave to file additional documents/evidence. Needless to say, the same shall be considered by the learned sole arbitrator taking into account all relevant aspects. It is further agreed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the event of the learned Arbitrator favourably considering the petitioner’s application, the additional incremental arbitral fees and costs that will be entailed (inter-alia on account of additional evidentiary and other hearings), shall be borne solely by the petitioner.”

8. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Court, the impugned order came to be passed. The Arbitral Tribunal in paragraph no. 1.11 has clearly observed that the petitioner cannot be permitted to produce evidence which in effect lead to delay in proceedings, as opportunity will have to be given to the respondents to admit or deny such documents. The Arbitral Tribunal found that the petitioner has lost an opportunity to produce these documents as long time has passed and proceedings reached the state of the evidence. The paragraph no. 1.5 and 1.6 of the order passed by the Arbitral Tri