Railtel Corporation Of India Ltd vs Primatel Fibcom Limited
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 04.08.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 25.08.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 01.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010307552026
+ W.P.(C) 9621/2026 & CM APPL. 44901/2026
RAILTEL CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Vashisht, Mr.
Alok Singh, Mr. Jaivardhan
Jeph, Ms. Shivani Devadiya,
Ms. Isba khan, Mr. Jaibrat
Singh and Mr. Vedansh
Vashisht, Advocates
versus
PRIMATEL FIBCOM LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rohit Gandhi and Mr.
Hargun Singh Kalra,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the order
dated 22.05.2026 [hereafter „ impugned order ‟] passed by the
learned Sole Arbitrator, whereby the application preferred by the
W.P.(C) 9261/2026 Page 1 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:28:05
petitioner under Sections 18, 19 and 24 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereafter „ A&C Act ‟], seeking determination
of the arbitral procedure and permission to lead oral evidence, had
been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case, as set out in the
petition, are that the petitioner, RailTel Corporation of India Ltd., and
the respondent had entered into an Agreement dated 27.02.2018 in
relation to the Raj Net Wi-Fi Project. Certain disputes had thereafter
arisen between the parties, pursuant to which the respondent had
invoked arbitration, and this Court, in ARB.P. 364/2024 , had
appointed the learned Sole Arbitrator. During the course of the said
proceedings, the petitioner had preferred a Counter-Claim dated
11.11.2024, which had been dismissed on 18.11.2024 without,
according to the petitioner, affording it an opportunity of hearing.
The petitioner had thereafter preferred an appeal against the said
decision, which had been disposed of on 09.12.2024 with liberty to
the petitioner to initiate independent proceedings for appointment of
an arbitrator. Consequently, the petitioner had preferred a petition
under Section 11 of the A&C Act, being ARB.P. 2075/2024 , pursuant
to which this Court, vide judgment dated 22.04.2025, had directed
that the Counter-Claim of the petitioner be adjudicated by the same
learned Sole Arbitrator as a fresh and independent reference. It is
further stated that, despite the aforesaid directions, the petitioner had
been denied an opportunity to lead oral evidence before completion
W.P.(C) 9261/2026 Page 2 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:28:05
of the proceedings, pursuant to the procedural order dated
20.05.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had preferred W.P.(C)
9396/2025 before this Court, which had been disposed of vide order
dated 09.07.2025, granting liberty to the petitioner to renew its
request before the learned Arbitrator for consideration on its own
merits. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed its Statement of Claim on
15.09.2025. Upon completion of the pleadings, the petitioner had
filed an application dated 17.04.2026 under Sections 18, 19 and 24 of
the A&C Act, seeking determination of the arbitral procedure and
permission to lead oral evidence. The petitioner had contended that
the present reference was a fresh and independent proceeding
pursuant to the judgment dated 22.04.2025 and, therefore, could not
be governed by the procedure adopted in the earlier arbitral
proceedings.
3. The learned Sole Arbitrator, vide the impugned order dated
22.05.2026, dismissed the aforesaid application, principally on the
ground that the parties, the agreement and the issues involved in the
present reference were common to those which had arisen in the
earlier arbitral proceedings. The petitioner has challenged the said
order before this Court, contending that the learned Arbitrator had
failed to consider the effect of the specific direction contained in the
judgment dated 22.04.2025, whereby the petitioner's Counter-Claim
had been directed to be adjudicated as a fresh and independent
reference.
W.P.(C) 9261/2026 Page 3 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:28:05
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent raised a preliminary objection
as to the maintainability of the present petition and the jurisdiction of
this Court to entertain a challenge to the impugned order passed by
the learned Sole Arbitrator in the course of the ongoing arbitral
proceedings.
5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner argues that the
impugned order, if allowed to stand and proceedings are driven to
conclusion without oral evidence, and the award is thereafter set
aside on this ground of procedural infirmity, then the entire process
would have to be repeated afresh, resulting in waste of judicial time,
resources of the parties. It is further submitted that this Court has
repeatedly directed that the present proceedings constitute a fresh and
independent reference (order dated 22.04.2025 in ARB.P. 2075/2024;
order dated 09.07.2025 in W.P.(C) 9396/2025). It is also contended
that it is crucial to lead oral evidence in this case and the learned
Arbitrator has erred in dismissing the application filed by the
petitioner.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other
hand, argues that the impugned order is a procedural determination
squarely within the powers conferred upon the learned Arbitral
Tribunal under Section 19(3) of the A&C Act. It is submitted that, in
the absence of any agreement between the parties as to the procedure
to be followed, the learned Arbitrator is empowered to conduct the
W.P.(C) 9261/2026 Page 4 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:28:05
proceedings in such manner as he considers appropriate, subject to
the statutory requirements. It is further submitted that, even in the
earlier arbitral proceedings between the same parties, being
DIAC/8149/04-24, the learned Arbitrator had, vide order dated
18.11.2024, directed that the matter be adjudicated on the basis of the
pleadings and documents available on record. The learned counsel
argues that, in the present proceedings also, adequate opportunity had
been afforded to the petitioner, as 13 hearings had been granted,
including 08 hearings for addressing oral arguments on behalf of the
petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner cannot claim
that it has been denied a reasonable opportunity to present its case
merely because its request for leading oral evidence and conducting
cross-examination had not been accepted. It is also contended that the
petitioner had earlier challenged a similar procedural order dated
20.05.2025 passed by the learned Arbitrator by way of W.P.(C)
9396/2025, and this Court had declined to entertain the writ petition
on the ground of maintainability. It is accordingly submitted that the
present petition, which seeks to challenge yet another procedural
order passed during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings, is not
maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
7. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing for the
parties and has carefully perused the material placed on record.
8. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated
22.05.2026 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, whereby the
W.P.(C) 9261/2026 Page 5 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:28:05
petitioner‟s request to lead oral evidence and undertake cross-
examination has been declined and the learned Arbitrator has directed
that the dispute be adjudicated on the basis of the documents already
available on record.
9. The issue which arises for consideration is whether this Court
should entertain the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India against an order passed by an Arbitral
Tribunal in the course of ongoing arbitral proceedings, particularly
where the grievance pertains to the manner in which the evidence is
to be led and the procedure to be followed by the learned Arbitrator.
10. At the outset, this Court considers it apposite to note that it is
well-settled that the A&C Act constitutes a self-contained statutory
framework intended to minimise judicial intervention and to ensure
expeditious adjudication of disputes through the arbitral process. The
jurisdiction of constitutional courts under Articles 226 and 227,
though undoubtedly wide, is not intended to provide an alternative
avenue for challenging every procedural or interlocutory order passed
by an Arbitral Tribunal during the pendency of arbitration. The
statutory scheme of A&C Act itself contemplates that several
procedural and jurisdictional questions arising during arbitration are
to be considered, in the first instance, by the Arbitral Tribunal, with
judicial scrutiny being available at the stages and in the manner
specifically contemplated under the A&C Act.
W.P.(C) 9261/2026 Page 6 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:28:05
11. In S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd.: (2005) 8 SCC 618 ,
a Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had examined
the question of judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings and had
cautioned against the routine exercise of writ jurisdiction in relation
to orders passed by Arbitral Tribunals. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court
had recognised that permitting parties to approach the High Courts
against every interlocutory order passed during arbitration would
defeat the very object and purpose of the arbitral mechanism and
would result in unnecessary delay in the conclusion of arbitral
proceedings. The relevant observations read as under:
“44. 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 of India. 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 his 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. This appears to
be the scheme of the Act. The arbitral tribunal is after all, the
creature of a contract between the parties, the arbitration
agreement, even though if the occasion arises, the Chief Justice
may constitute it based on the contract between the parties. But
that would not alter the status of the arbitral tribunal. It will
still be a forum chosen by the parties by agreement. We,
therefore, disapprove of the stand adopted by some of the High
Courts that any order passed by the arbitral tribunal is capable
of being corrected by the High Court under Article 226 or 227
of the Constitution of India. Such an intervention by the High
Courts is not permissible.
45. The object of minimizing judicial intervention while the
W.P.(C) 9261/2026 Page 7 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:28:05
matter is in the process of being arbitrated upon, will certainly
be defeated if the High Court could be approached under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India against every order made by the
arbitral tribunal. Therefore, it is necessary to indicate that once
the arbitration has commenced in the arbitral tribunal, parties
have to wait until the award is pronounced unless, of course, a
right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 of the Act
even at an earlier stage.”
12. The impugned order challenged in the present case is an
interlocutory procedural order concerning the manner in which the
evidence is to be presented before the learned Arbitrator. The
petitioner seeks to challenge the decision declining oral evidence and
cross-examination and directing adjudication on the basis of the
documents already placed on record. Such an order, passed in the
course of an ongoing arbitration, does not finally determine the rights
of the parties in the underlying dispute. Therefore, the question
before this Court is whether such a procedural determination made by
the learned Arbitrator can be subjected to challenge under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution in the midst of the arbitral
proceedings.
13. In Deep Industries Ltd. v. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation
Ltd.: (2020) 15 SCC 706 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court expressly
disapproved the view that “any order” passed by an Arbitral Tribunal
can be corrected by the High Court under Articles 226/227 and held
that, once arbitration has commenced, the parties ordinarily have to
await the award, save where a statutory appeal under Section 37 is
W.P.(C) 9261/2026 Page 8 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:28:05
available, observing that interference at every stage would defeat the
object of minimising judicial intervention. It was also held that even
the jurisdiction under Article 227 should be exercised with extreme
circumspection and confined to cases of patent lack of inherent
jurisdiction. In Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar
Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. : (2022) 1 SCC 75 , the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court reiterated that the arbitral process ought not to be
interfered with under Articles 226/227 as a matter of course and that
such jurisdiction is to be exercised only in cases of exceptional rarity,
particularly where the statutory framework leaves a party remediless
or there is clear bad faith. The same principle has been applied by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. v.
Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC: 2022 SCC OnLine Del
3890 , wherein, while dealing with a challenge to procedural orders of
an Arbitral Tribunal, the Court observed that the window for
interference under Article 227 becomes “even narrower” where the
order is procedural in nature and held that the High Court cannot, in
exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, dictate to a duly constituted
Arbitral Tribunal the manner and procedure in which the arbitration
proceedings are to be conducted, particularly having regard to the
procedural autonomy conferred upon the Tribunal under Section 19
of the A&C Act. Thus, a mere grievance with regard to the manner in
which the Tribunal chooses to conduct the proceedings or record
evidence, absent patent lack of jurisdiction or other exceptional
W.P.(C) 9261/2026 Page 9 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:28:05
circumstances , does not furnish a ground for interference under
Articles 226/227.
14. This Court shall, therefore, examine whether the present case
discloses any exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
notwithstanding the aforesaid settled position.
15. In the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the
impugned order dated 22.05.2026 is, in substance, a procedural order
passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the course of the ongoing
arbitral proceedings. By the said order, the learned Arbitrator had
considered the petitioner‟s request for leading oral evidence and for
cross-examination and, in exercise of the procedural powers available
under Section 19(3) of the A&C Act, had declined the said request
and directed that the matter be proceeded with on the basis of the
pleadings, documents available on record and oral submissions. The
said order neither determines the substantive rights of the parties nor
brings the arbitral proceedings to an end. There is also no material
before this Court to suggest that the learned Arbitrator had acted
without inherent jurisdiction or had committed any jurisdictional
error of such a fundamental nature as would warrant exercise of the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution.
16. This Court further notes that the petitioner had earlier
W.P.(C) 9261/2026 Page 10 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:28:05
challenged a similar procedural order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the
same learned Arbitrator in the connected arbitral proceedings by way
of W.P.(C) 9396/2025. The said writ petition had been dismissed by
the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 09.07.2025, whereby the
Court had declined to interfere with the procedural determination of
the learned Arbitrator, however, had granted liberty to the petitioner
to renew its request before the learned Arbitrator, which was to be
considered on its own merits. The relevant portion of the said order
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court reads as under:
“4. Undisputedly, the counter-claims have to be adjudicated in
accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the learned sole arbitrator ought not to have
precluded the petitioner from adducing oral evidence in
support of its counter-claims without even considering the
pleadings of the parties with regard thereto.
5. It is noticed that the scope of interference in arbitral
proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
is extremely limited. In this regard reference is apposite to
judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhaven
Constructions vs Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Limited and Anr. , (2022) 1 SCC 75; and
this Court in Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. vs Micro and Small
Enterprises Facilitation Council and Ors. , 2025 SCC OnLine
Del 319 and Surender Kumar Singhal and Ors. vs Arun
Kumar Bhalotia and Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3708.
6. There can be no cavil with the proposition that the arbitral
proceedings have to be conducted in accordance with the
framework of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter „the A&C Act‟) ; if any party has a grievance as
regards infraction of any of the provisions of the A&C Act, the
parties must be relegated to the prescription/remedies
prescribed in the said Act. The occasion to exercise jurisdiction
under Article 226 would arise only in rare and egregious
situations.
W.P.(C) 9261/2026 Page 11 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:28:05
7. In the circumstances of the present case, this Court is not
inclined to interdict with the findings/directions contained in
the order dated 20.05.2025.
8. At this stage, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
confines himself to seeking that after the pleadings of the
counter-claims are completed, the petitioner be granted liberty
to once again request the learned sole arbitrator to consider
whether adducing of any oral evidence is warranted,
considering the facts and the circumstances.
9. Needless to say, the petitioner is not precluded from making
any such request to the learned sole arbitrator, which shall be
considered by the learned sole arbitrator on its own merit.
Necessarily, the learned sole arbitrator would consider all the
aspects of the matter including those highlighted by the
petitioner in the present petition.
10. In the circumstances, the present petition is dismissed,
while granting the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. Pending
application also stands disposed of.”
17. The petitioner had thereafter approached the learned Arbitrator
with a similar request, which had been considered and rejected by the
impugned order. The grievance of the petitioner essentially concerns
the manner in which the learned Arbitrator has chosen to conduct the
proceedings and the evidentiary procedure to be followed therein.
Whether, having regard to the pleadings and documents available on
record, oral evidence or cross-examination is necessary for an
effective adjudication of the dispute is, in the first instance, a matter
falling within the procedural domain of the learned Arbitral Tribunal.
Merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the manner in
which such discretion has been exercised cannot, by itself, furnish a
ground for invoking the writ or supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
W.P.(C) 9261/2026 Page 12 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:28:05
18. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Telecommunication
Consultants India Limited v. B.R. Sukale Construction: 2021 SCC
OnLine Del 4863 , in similar facts and circumstances, had refused to
interfere with an order of similar nature, and had made the following
observations:
“13. Admittedly in the present petitions, there is no agreement
between the parties with regard to the procedure for carrying
out the arbitration proceedings. In the absence of any
agreement between the parties, the sole arbitrator has the
absolute authority to decide on whether to allow evidence in a
particular case or to proceed with the adjudication of the matter
on the basis of documents and other materials. In the present
cases, the sole arbitrator having decided that the matter can be
adjudicated on the basis of the documents on record, has held
that no evidence by way of witnesses/oral evidence is required
for the time being. No fault can be found in the decision of the
arbitrator in this regard.
14. Furthermore, the reliance of the counsel for the petitioner
on the provisos to Section 24(1) of the Arbitration Act is
totally misplaced. The provisos have be read in context of the
main provision being Section 24(1) of the Arbitration Act,
which states that the arbitral tribunal shall, inter alia, decide
whether to hold oral hearings for the presentation of evidence.
The provisos to the main provision cannot be read as taking
way the absolute discretion of the arbitral tribunal as provided
under Section 24(1) of the Arbitration Act, or as making the
presentation of evidence through oral hearing procedurally
mandatory.”
19. This Court is also conscious that the petitioner has relied upon
the judgment dated 22.04.2025 passed by this Court in ARB.P.
2075/2024, whereby the counter-claim had been directed to be
adjudicated as a fresh and independent reference. However, whether
the said direction necessarily required the entire evidentiary
W.P.(C) 9261/2026 Page 13 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:28:05
procedure adopted in the earlier proceedings to be reopened or
whether the learned Arbitrator could, in the facts and circumstances,
proceed on the basis of the material already available on record, is
itself a matter concerning the conduct of the arbitral proceedings.
This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, is
not required to examine the correctness of such procedural
determination at this interlocutory stage.
20. This Court, therefore, finds that the present case does not
reveal any exceptional circumstance warranting interference with the
impugned order. The order dated 22.05.2026 does not suffer from
any patent lack of jurisdiction, nor has the petitioner demonstrated
any perversity or fundamental procedural illegality which would
justify departure from the settled principle of minimal judicial
intervention in arbitral proceedings. The availability of remedies
under the A&C Act is also a relevant consideration against
entertaining the present challenge at this stage.
21. In view of the consistent legal position emerging from the
decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and this Court, this Court is
of the considered opinion that no exceptional case is made out for
exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India against the impugned procedural order dated
22.05.2026 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.
22. Accordingly, the present writ petition, along with the pending
W.P.(C) 9261/2026 Page 14 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:28:05
application, is dismissed.
23. It is, however, clarified that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the rival claims or defences of the parties, or
on the correctness of the procedure ultimately to be followed by the
learned Arbitral Tribunal. All such contentions are left open to be
urged in accordance with law at the appropriate stage and before the
appropriate forum.
24. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
AUGUST 25, 2026/zp
T.S./V.S.
W.P.(C) 9261/2026 Page 15 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:28:05