42-WP10726-2026.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10726 OF 2026 Nirmala Mamraj Agarwal ...Petitioner Versus Pune Municipal Corporation And Anr …Respondents Mr. Pratap Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, a/w Abhishek Roy, Shreyas Zarkar, Sweta Shah and Gaurav Shahane, for the Respondents - PMC. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 1st SEPTEMBER, 2026 Order:- 1. Heard Mr. Pratap Patil, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by the learned Arbitrator on an application preferred by the claimant seeking permission to produce documents. 3. By the impugned order, the learned Arbitrator rejected the application as the production of document was sought at the stage of leading evidence without disclosing any reason as to why the documents sought to be produced could not be 1/4 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.05 12:45:55 +0530 42-WP10726-2026.DOC produced, at an earlier point in time. 4. Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the learned Arbitrator took a very hyper-technical view of the matter. The documents sought to be produced are necessary for a just decision of the arbitral proceedings. Those documents were sought to be produced before the Respondent/opponent commenced the claimant’s witness’s cross-examination. Thus, there was no potentiality of prejudice to the Respondents. 5. Per contra, Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, would submit that the order impugned in this petition, being a processual order, is not amenable to interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The interference in the arbitral proceedings in exercise of writ jurisdiction is a rarity. In the case at hand, the impugned order, which ascribes unimpeachable reasons, can never fall in the category of orders the perversity of which stares in the face. 6. The submissions on behalf of the Respondents appear justifiable. The application seeking permission to produce the documents singularly lacks reason. It simply records that the claimant wanted to produce documents which were necessary in deciding the claim on merits. The learned Arbitrator was wholly 2/4 42-WP10726-2026.DOC justified in observing that there was no whisper as to why those documents could not be produced at an earlier stage. The learned Arbitrator has adverted to the prejudice that would cause to the Respondents in the event the production of the documents was allowed at a belated stage sans any justifiable reason. 7. The High Court is not expected to interfere with the arbitral process in a light manner. It is only in those cases where the perversity in the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal stares in the face or the person aggrieved is rendered completely remediless, the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, and that too in rare cases. A profitable reference can be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Deep Industries Ltd. vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and another1, Bhaven Construction, through Authorised Signtory Prmjibhai K. Shah vs. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and Another2 and Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited3. 1 (2020) 15 SCC 706. 2 (2022) 1 SCC 75. 3 (2022) 1 SCC 131. 3/4 42-WP10726-2026.DOC 8. The order impugned in this case does not fall in the category of those rare cases where the writ Court would be justified in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. 9. The petition, thus, stands dismissed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 4/4