Synopsis

The petitioner, a former distributor of the respondent's eye care products, filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeking to set aside an arbitral award that dismissed its claim for loss of profit, interest, and costs. The dispute arose from a distributorship agreement where the petitioner alleged that the respondent had given assurances of sales but failed to fulfil them, causing business losses. The arbitral tribunal dismissed the claim, rejecting the petitioner's belated attempt to introduce additional evidence (CW-3 and documents) after the evidence stage had closed. The High Court dismissed the Section 34 petition, holding that: (i) the tribunal's procedural order rejecting belated evidence was a plausible and reasonable exercise of its powers under Section 19; (ii) no violation of party autonomy or natural justice occurred as the procedure was agreed upon; (iii) the tribunal's findings on absence of contractual assurance were findings of fact not amenable to interference; and (iv) the scope of interference under Section 34 is extremely narrow.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad

Date of Judgment: 23rd April 2026

Citation: O.M.P. (COMM) (unreported; I.A. details not specified)

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34(2)(a)(iii), 34(2)(b)(ii), 19 (procedure), 2(1)(a) (definition of arbitration)

1. Proper heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

O.m.p. (comm.) (original miscellaneous petition) (details not specified) – judgment delivered on 23.04.2026

Osa vendita pvt ltd (petitioner) vs. Bausch and lomb india pvt ltd (respondent)

Coram: hon'ble mr. justice subramonium prasad

Date: 23rd april, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 – section 34(2)(a)(iii) (party not given proper notice or unable to present case), section 34(2)(b)(ii) (award in conflict with public policy of India), section 19 (determination of rules of procedure), section 2(1)(a) (arbitration includes both institutional and ad-hoc)

• Code of civil procedure, 1908 – order vii rule 14 (production of documents at belated stage), order xviii rule 17-a (now deleted, but inherent power to permit evidence)

• Indian evidence act, 1872 – not binding on arbitral tribunal under Section 19

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether a Section 34 petition can be allowed on the ground that the arbitral tribunal rejected a belated application to produce additional evidence (including a witness and documents) after the evidence stage had closed, and whether such rejection amounts to violation of party autonomy, natural justice, or public policy.

Key legal principles applied:

• Arbitral tribunal's power over procedure (Section 19): Under Section 19(2) and (3), the parties are free to agree on procedure; failing agreement, the tribunal may conduct proceedings in the manner it considers appropriate. The tribunal is not bound by the CPC or Evidence Act. This power includes determining admissibility, relevance, materiality, and weight of evidence (Section 19(4)).

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.