[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Manoj Rastogi vs Neeraj Srivastava on 7 April, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~88
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4505/2026, CM APPL. 21975/2026 & CM APPL.
21976/2026
Date of Decision: 07.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
MANOJ RASTOGI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vineet Sinha Advocate.
versus
NEERAJ SRIVASTAVA .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petition is for setting aside orders dated 26.06.2025 and
13.02.2026 passed in arbitration proceedings between the parties herein.
Vide both the orders, applications filed by the petitioner seeking permission
to lead secondary evidence and to file additional documents have been
rejected.
2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, the parties herein are partners
at M/s Agronext Ventures LLP and have fifty-percent share each. On
account of a dispute having arisen in the said partnership, the respondent, on
10.10.2023, initiated arbitration proceedings seeking recovery of money and
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 KUMAR KAURAV
expulsion of the petitioner therefrom.
3. The respondent is stated to have filed certain F.I.R registered against
the petitioner along with the statement of claim, and the petitioner has, in his
statement of defence, refuted the same as irrelevant to the proceedings.
4. In the interregnum, a closure report dated 04.12.2023/05.12.2023 is
stated to have been filed by the police before the concerned Trial Court.
Further, the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLT) is stated
to have passed order dated 25.07.2025 in proceedings initiated by a third
party related to the respondent seeking recovery of money alleged to have
been invested in M/s Agronext Ventures LLP. The petitioner had sought to
place on record, the said closure report dated 04.12.2023/05.12.2023, and
the order dated 25.07.2025. However, the same have been rejected vide the
impugned orders holding that the said documents are irrelevant to the
proceedings.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made various
submissions to emphasise that for deciding the controversy between the
parties, the documents in question are necessary to be brought on record.
6. However, considering the facts and circumstances involved, the Court
finds that at this interlocutory stage, there is no justification to interfere with
the orders passed by the sole arbitrator. The scope under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against an interlocutory order is minimal.
7. This Court in Groson Engineers v. M/s Rajiv Aggarwal &Anr.,1 dealt
with a case where the petitioner sought to assail an order passed by the Ld.
Arbitrator rejecting the petitioner's application to lead an additional witness.
Rejecting the challenge made therein, this Court held:
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 KUMAR KAURAV
"5. ...Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against an interlocutory order passed by the Arbitral
Tribunal ought to be minimal. It is only orders which evince, on their face,
palpable illegality or a nonapplication of mind, which are required to be
interfered with. It must not be lost sight of, that arbitration is a private
adjudicatory system, chosen by the parties themselves. Words, must not be
minced, parties voluntarily chose the method of arbitration to opt out of the
conventional court mechanism; the traditional litigation-mechanism ought
not to be brought back, by entertaining, casually, writs against interlocutory
orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the discussion
above, the Court does not find any reason to interdict the said Order. The
petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to agitate its grievance at the stage of
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if such a stage at
all arises.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of."
8. The Supreme Court, in S.B.P. and Co v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and
Anr.,2 has also held that, intermittent challenges to orders passed in arbitral
proceedings are not envisaged except under Section 37 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act]. The relevant portion of the said
decision is bextractred below, for reference:
"It is seen that some High Courts have proceeded on the basis that any
order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal during arbitration, would be
capable of being challenged under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.
We see no warrant for such an approach. Section 37 makes certain
orders of the Arbitral Tribunal appealable. Under Section 34, the
aggrieved party has an avenue for ventilating its grievances against the
award including any in-between orders that might have been passed by
the Arbitral Tribunal acting under Section 16 of the Act. The party
aggrieved by any order of the Arbitral Tribunal, unless has a right of
appeal under Section 37 of the Act, has to wait until the award is passed
by the Tribunal."
9. In any case, the petitioner will have adequate opportunity to challenge
the correctness of these orders, under Section 34 of the A&C Act, in case,
the petitioner is aggrieved by the award to be pronounced by the Arbitrator.
W.P. (C) 17470/2025, Order dt. 27.01.2026.
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 KUMAR KAURAV
10. In view thereof, finding no justification in the submissions made by
the petitioner, the petition stands dismissed.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 7, 2026/p
(2005) 8 SCC 618
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 KUMAR KAURAV
