$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 21^st January, 2026 Date of Decision: 03^rd February, 2026 + CM(M) 156/2026, CM APPL. 3890/2026 & CM APPL. 3891/2026 M/S AGARWAL ASSOCIATES (PROMOTERS) LTD.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shashank Garg, Senior Advocate with Mr.Divyakant Lahoti,Mr.Kartik Lahoti, Mrs. Vindhya Mehra, Ms. Praveena Bisth, Mr. Adith Menon, Ms. Akanksha Soni and Ms.

Shubheksha Dwivedi, Advs.

versus M/S SHARDA DEVELOPERS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Roshan Santhalia, Ms. Kavya Arora and Mr. Shivansh Sinha, Advs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), assailing the order dated 24^th December 2025 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in Case Ref. No. DIAC/6028/03-23, whereby the ld. Sole Arbitrator allowed the application filed by the respondent/claimant to bring on record only one document - Annexure A i.e., Letter dated 08^th August, 2012

2. Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the documents sought to be introduced were admittedly within the knowledge and possession of the respondent since the inception of the Arbitral Proceedings. It was contented that permitting such documents at the stage of final arguments amounts to reopening concluded stages of arbitration and defeats the statutory objective of expeditious resolution under Section 29 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”). It was further submitted that the impugned order stands outside the four corners of the agreement, which alone defines the jurisdiction and powers of the ld. Arbitrator. The respondent had several opportunities throughout the Arbitral Proceedings to disclose and produce the alleged document. Prior to the present application, the respondent had already filed two applications seeking to place additional documents on record and the impugned order has been passed without recording any exceptional circumstances for placing the allegeddocumentsonrecord.Theimpugnedorderhascausedgraveprejudice to the petitioner and is tainted by bad faith, lack of inherent jurisdiction and procedural perversity. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

Reliance was placed upon the following judgments, Surender Kumar Singhal V. Arun Kumar Bhalotia 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3708, ONGC Petro Additions Ltd. V. Technimont S.P.A. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 897620, Fortuna Skill Management (P) Ltd. V. Jaina Marketing & Associates 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4685 and John Peter Fernandes V. Saraswati RamchandraGhantesincedeceasedandothers2023SCCOnLineBom676. 3. Per contra, ld. Counsel for the respondent, has argued that, in view of the settled principles of law governing the limited scope of judicial intervention in interlocutory orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, the present petition is not maintainable, as no exceptional circumstances have beenmadeouttoinvokethejurisdictionunderArticle227ofthisCourt.Ithas also been argued that the impugned order has been passed in exercise of procedural discretion vested in the Arbitral Tribunal and is a reasoned order. It was, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed as being devoid of any merits.

Reliance was placed upon the following judgments, S.B.P and Co. V.

Patel Engineering Ltd. and Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 618, Bhaven Construction V Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC 75, Fortuna Coupons Private Limited V. Amazon.com Nv Investment Holdings LCC 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3890 and Pink City Expressways Private Limited V. Aaron Security and Services Pvt. Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 380.

4. I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The impugned order is interlocutory in nature as it does not bring,to an end, the arbitral proceedings, which are still continuing.

6. The scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in dealing with the interlocutory orders of