[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Brij Lal And Sons vs Union Of India on 1 April, 2026
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~65
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 01.04.2026
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 34/2026
BRIJ LAL AND SONS
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Tilak Raj Gogia, Appellant in
person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Ms. Ankita
Bhadouriya and Mr. Fajallu Rehman,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 20415/2026 (Early Hearing)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
2. The application is disposed of.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 34/2026, CM APPL. 11726/2026
3. This Intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
11.11.2025 passed in OMP (Comm.) No. 258/2020 titled as "M/s Brijlal &
Sons v. Union of India" whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the
application filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner has sought cost of
the proceedings.
4. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the application by stating in
paragraph 4 onwards in the following manner:-
"4. A perusal of paragraph 'J' shows that the petitioner
has only paid a sum of Rs. 55,000/- for the second
Award. He has multiplied the said figure of Rs. 55,000
into 13 times and has calculated a figure of Rs.
7,15,000/-
5. On my questioning, it is stated by Mr. Gogia, the
petitioner who appears in person that there is no other
documentary proof except the payment of Rs. 55,000/-.
6. In the absence of supporting documents, this Court
cannot award costs in favour of the petitioner.
Additionally, even in the statement of claims filed by
the petitioner, no prayer for costs has been made.
7. Accordingly, the application is dismissed."
5. The submission of the appellant is primarily that the appellant apart
from incurring expenses of Rs.55,000/-, has also paid Rs.1,16,000/- as fee to
the Arbitrator, as such, the learned Single Judge could not have dismissed
the application and in any case, the petition under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act") is still pending consideration,
the learned Single Judge should have heard and decided the application
along with Section 34 petition for the reason the Court, if convinced, could
award cost in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.
6. Though, the learned counsel for the respondent states that he has no
instructions, as a short issue arises for consideration, we deem it appropriate
to dispose of the appeal by stating that the learned Single Judge could not
have dismissed the application, more so, when the main petition filed under
Section 34 of the Act is pending consideration. Surely, the appellant shall be
within his right to press for cost during the hearing of the petition under
Section 34 of the Act.
7. We set aside the order dated 11.11.2025, and hold the appellant shall
be within his right to press for cost of Rs. 55,000/- and any other amount,
which the appellant may claim as cost, duly supported by documents, before
the learned Single Judge.
8. The application being I.A. 11934/2025 in OMP (Comm.) 258/2020 is
revived to be decided along with the said OMP (Comm.).
9. All the contentions of the respondent on the application are left open
to be canvassed before the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of the
petition under Section 34 of the Act.
10. The earlier date already fixed i.e. 14.05.2026 stands cancelled.
11. Pending application, if any, is disposed of as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
APRIL 01, 2026/sr
