$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 13.03.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 103/2025, I.A. 5454/2025 (For Exemption) &

I.A. 5455/2025 (For Stay)

M/S SCL-CRC21B JV .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Rishabh Dheer, Ms. Aishwarya Singh, Ms. Medhavi Bhatia, Mr. Sarthak Bhardwaj, Ms. Adhishwar Suri, Ms. Rupam Jha, Mr. Dushyant Kaul, Mr. Brighu Pamidighantam, Mr. Vaibhav Gandhi, Mr. Kartikey Puneesh and Mr. Prateek Srivastava, Advocates.

versus RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Ms.

Shivpriya and Ms. Harshita Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act, seeking to set aside what has been termed as an “Interim Award” dated 26.11.2024.

2. The relevant portion of the impugned Interim Award, which is sought to be challenged, reads as follows:-

“ 14. The Arbitral Tribunal heard the arguments of both Claimants and the Respondents on 11.11.2024 (online) and 26.11.2024 (physical). The Tribunal decided on the objections raised in the Respondent Application dated 24.10.2024 with regard to C-93 to C-96 as follows:

a) Ex. C-93. This is regarding Certificate of CA dated 10.10.2024 submitted by the Claimant‟s witness, as this document has been created on 10.10.2024 as evident from the date of Certificate by the CA. The pleadings in this case were completed by 13.09.2024 and admission/ denial was over by 28.09.2024. Hence in opinion of the Tribunal it is a new document which came into existence only after completion of admission/ denial, so it cannot be taken on record.

b) Ex. C-94: This is regarding documents of deliberation of a “committee for amicable solution….” dated 18.11.2021 in some another Contract. Respondent argued that the documents submitted with the affidavit are different from the document submitted in the pleadings 8 pages are common and 4 pages are different and one page is new. This document is not a policy circular but a recommendation of the Committee in regard to the specific contract and not applicable in general Arbitral Tribunal is of the view that this is an additional document. Hence it is not taken on record.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contends that the present Petition under Section 34 of the Act is maintainable as the learned Arbitral Tribunal has entered into a discussion on the merits of the matter. It is further submitted that while refusing to take the said documents on record, the learned Arbitral Tribunal has rendered certain findings which would enter into the realm of merits of the various claims as raised by the Petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Aptec Advanced Protective Technologies AG v. Union of India², to support his contention that observations on the merits of the claim have been made and thereby rendering making the impugned order an Interim Award which can be subjected to challenge under Section 34 of the Act.

5. He further seeks to substantiate the same by relying upon the Claim No. 3 raised in its Statement of Claims as well as Rejoinder. While doing so, the learned counsel submits that in respect of the refusal of exhibit C-94, the learned Arbitral Tribunal has entered into the merits of the said claim by holding that the said document would not be relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the said claim.

6. He also submits that such observation by the learned Tribunal is at variance with the stand taken by the Petitioner in both the Statement of Claim as well as in the Rejoinder, as therein reliance has been made upon the said document to canvass that the formula that is to be used for the purpose of calculating the prolongation cost is set out in the said document.

7. Per Contra, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel who appe