$~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010461142026 + CM(M) 2134/2026, CM APPL. 66414/2026 & CM APPL. 66415/2026 PINE LABS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Gurmeet Bindra, Adv. versus OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 25.09.2026 1. Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks to assail an observation made in Question No. 39 by the learned Sole Arbitrator during the cross examination of RW-1 on 08.09.2026. 2. The petitioner/claimant has instituted the underlying arbitration proceedings claiming Rs. 3,40,47,469 purportedly due to the respondent’s failure to clear the monthly invoices. The respondent filed its statement of defense, against which the petitioner filed their rejoinder. 3. The learned sole arbitrator framed the issues on 19.11.2025 and thereafter, the petitioner’s witness, CW-1 was examined on 24.02.2026, 25.02.2026 and 15.07.2026 and discharged. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed their evidence by way of affidavit dated 27.03.2026, after which, the petitioner/claimant started their cross-examination of RW-1. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 10:34:21 4. On 08.09.2026 during the cross-examination of RW-1, the petitioner sought to confront RW-1 with a purported tax-invoice dated 31.03.2020. The relevant portion of the proceedings dated 08.09.2026 are extracted as under – “The witness is shown the invoice dated 31.03.2020 (Not part of the tribunal record and is put to the witness confront a fact) raised by Claimant on the Respondent company and following question put to the witness. Q39. I put it to you that this invoice was raised by the Claimant on the Respondent which has been paid by the Respondent to the Claimant company. Can you confirm this fact? (Objection by the counsel for the Respondent that the document being shown to the witness is not a part of the tribunal record and the Respondent has never been given an opportunity to admit / deny the same). Ms. Gurmeet Bindra counsel for the Claimant : As per the settled procedure of evidence the witness can be confronted with the document at the stage of his deposition. Per Tribunal: It is a settled law that strict rules of evidence do not apply in arbitration proceedings. However, if a document is relevant it has to be first admitted. The counsel can seek permission as per law.” 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, by declining to permit the Petitioner to confront RW-1 with the aforesaid tax invoice, the learned Sole Arbitrator has effectively foreclosed the Petitioner from eliciting material information relevant to the adjudication of the dispute. 6. She further submitted that confronting a witness with documentary material during cross-examination is a recognised and routine mode of eliciting evidence and ought not to be disallowed at the threshold. It was submitted that the Respondent would have had adequate opportunity to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 10:34:21 dispute or controvert the tax invoice and that precluding the Petitioner from eliciting information therefrom, merely on account of a procedural objection, would be disproportionate and contrary to the interests of justice. 7. At the outset, this Court deems it apposite to mention that a joint perusal of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgments in Bhaven Constructions v Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC 75, Deep Industries v ONGC (2020) 15 SCC 706 and Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v Dexter Capital Advisors (P) Ltd. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 22 and Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, makes it abundantly clear that this Court should be incredibly circumspect in exercising its jurisdiction in cases pending before the arbitral tribunal. Interference is allowed only in cases of patent perversity and illegality so as to ensure minimal judicial interference. 8. In the present case, no such patent perversity is shown. It is settled law that the arbitrator is the master of the proceedings, and that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not applicable to arbitration proceedings. The learned sole arbitrator has rightly held that if the document sought to be presented is relevant, then it should have been admitted or should have formed part of the evidence affidavit. Since the cross examination was conducted in 2026, and the tax invoice was of 2020, the learned Sole Arbitrator has rightly noted in their observation to Question 39, as extracted in paragraph 4 of this order, that the document ought to have been admitted first, and shouldn’t have been introduced for the first time at such a belated stage. 9. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that since the learned Sole Arbitrator has complete discretion over the proceedings before them and has This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 10:34:21 rightly exercised that discretion, there is no perversity warranting interference of this Court under Article 227. The petitioner shall always have the option of raising this issue before the section 34 court, if the award is passed against them. 10. The petition, along with pending applications, stands dismissed. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed its opinions on the merits of the matter. AJAY DIGPAUL, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2026/AS/SG This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 10:34:21