Delhi High Court Rules Arbitral Tribunal's Order On Document Discovery Does Not Constitute Interim Award
Delhi High Court Rules Arbitral Tribunal's Order On Document Discovery Does Not Constitute Interim Award
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court has ruled that an order by an arbitral tribunal addressing applications related to the discovery and inspection of documents does not qualify as an interim award if it does not resolve any matter at issue between the parties.
The case involved a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 by Aptec Advanced Protective Technologies AG (the Petitioner), which challenged what it described as an interim award made by the Sole Arbitrator on November 18, 2010. This award dismissed four applications from the Petitioner, seeking the discovery of certain documents from the Union of India (the Respondent).
The Petitioner had filed four applications before the Arbitrator, seeking various documents related to their dispute. The first application requested documents including Acceptance Test Procedures and Defect Investigation Reports for specific boot models. The Arbitrator found that some documents were either non-existent or had been provided through other means, while others were deemed confidential or irrelevant. The second application sought a Field Trial Report for a specific boot model, which was produced but not disclosed further due to the limited scale of the trial. The third application aimed to obtain documents such as Field Trial Directives and Purchase Orders, but these were found to be outdated, confidential, or irrelevant. The fourth application sought details on investigations and correspondence related to boot crampons, which was deemed belated and an attempt at a fishing inquiry without a specific plea from the claimant.
The underlying dispute involved a claim for non-payment for boots supplied for ice-wall climbing at the Siachen Glacier. The Respondent alleged defects in the boots, while the Petitioner argued that the defect was due to outdated crampons from a different supplier.
In its ruling, the High Court observed that while the Arbitrator's decision addressed several aspects of the dispute, it did not resolve the core issues of the case. The Arbitrator’s order was limited to document discovery and inspection and did not constitute a final resolution of the disputes. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Rhiti Sports Management (P) Ltd. v. Power Play Sports & Events Ltd., explaining that an interim award must address and resolve a matter that could eventually be settled in a final award. Procedural orders that do not settle any substantive issue are not considered arbitral awards.
The High Court noted that the Arbitrator’s decision explicitly stated that it did not address the merits of the underlying dispute, particularly Issue No. 6 regarding the alleged defectiveness of the boots, which remained unresolved. Therefore, the Court concluded that the impugned decision was not an interim award but merely an order on document discovery and inspection, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
