NIRMALA MAMRAJ AGARWALversusPUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR

                                                                    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.
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
                                                    CORAM:    N. J. JAMADAR, J.
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI                                            DATED:    1st SEPTEMBER, 2026
Date: 2026.09.05
12:45:55 +0530


                      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
                                                   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