IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7935-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision:06.11.2025 CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ....Petitioner(s)

Versus ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-16) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Union of India submitted that the present revision petition has been filed by invoking the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order which is a procedural order passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, whereby the application filed by the petitioner who is the respondent in the claim petition before the learned Sole Arbitrator for placing on record some documents has been rejected. He submitted that by way of the impugned order (Annexure P-16), the learned Sole Arbitrator rejected the application filed by the petitioner for filing additional documents which has prejudiced the rights of the petitioner because the said additional documents, if not placed on record before the learned Arbitrator, it will cause prejudice to the interest of the petitioner-Union of India. He submitted that the petitioner-Union of India also pleaded before the learned Arbitrator that there were errors in the calculation of the claim made by the respondent but the learned Arbitrator has ordered that the claimant-respondent in the present case is given an opportunity to file response to such table which was filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator is a procedural order but the extraordinary powers of this Court can always be exercised, even when there is a challenge laid to a procedural order of an Arbitrator when the order is perverse and in exceptional circumstances. He referred to a judgment of Bhaven Construction through Authorized Signatory Premji Bhai K. Shah Vs. Executive Engineers, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and another, (2022)1 SCC 75.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-Union of India.

5. The procedural order (Annexure P-16) passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator which has been challenged in the present case is reproduced as under:-

“Record of Proceedings dated 16.10.2025

1. The Counsel for the Respondent advanced his final arguments and has concluded the arguments. The Respondent also presented a Chartered Accountant, Ms. Anchal Kapoor, who addressed the Tribunal and clarified certain calculation errors made by the Claimant in its pleadings. The application for filing additional documents filed by the Respondent is rejected as being belated and attempted to be filed after the conclusion of the arguments of the Claimant. The respondent is only permitted to file a table as part of its arguments restricted to the clarification given by Ms Kapoor during arguments on or before 27^th October 2025. 2. The Claimant is given an opportunity to file a response to such table filed by the Respondent on or before 10th November

2025.

3. The Rejoinders shall be argued on 05.12.2025 from 11 AM to 1 PM for the Claimant and 2 PM to 4 PM for the Respondent. The venue shall be arranged by the Claimant for all sessions. 4. The parties are directed to furnish the details of the payment of fees made and balance fees, if any, be deposited on or before

15.11.2025, if not already paid.”

6. A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the arbitration proceedings are at the fag end and at that stage the petitioner-Union of India who is the respondent before the learned Arbitrator filed an a