M/S Ridley Life Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Vks Hospitality LLP

¶1

$~47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P. (COMM) 241/2025 and IA Nos. 15841/2025 & 15842/2025

¶4

M/S RIDLEY LIFE SCIENCE PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashim Vachher, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshuman Sharma and Mr. Azaz Ahmad, Advocates

¶5

versus M/S VKS HOSPITALITY LLP .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ramnish Khanna, Mr. Sahil Dagar, Mr. Sumit Tokas and Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocates with Mr. Vishnu Sarna, AR

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 14.07.2025

¶10

I.A. No. 15842/2025 (Exemption)

¶11

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

The application is disposed of.

¶13

O.M.P.(COMM) 241/2025 & I.A. No.15841/2025 (Stay)

¶14

The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed assailing the order dated 09.06.2025 [‘impugned order’], passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the arbitral proceedings bearing CASE FILE REF. NO. DIAC/7305/05-23, whereby the Petitioner’s application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’], filed for seeking amendment of the Statement of Defence has been dismissed on the plea that it has been filed belatedly, at the stage of final arguments.

¶15

The Petitioner herein is the Non-Claimant and the Respondent herein

¶16

O.M.P. (COMM) 241/2025 Page

¶17

1 of 4

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2025 at 12:42:25

¶20

is the Claimant in the arbitral proceedings. However, for ease of reference, the parties are being referred by their status in the present proceedings.

¶21

Mr. Ashim Vachher, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Non-Claimant states that in the facts of this case, the dispute is with respect to the Respondent’s/Claimant’s claim in the arbitral proceedings for a sum of Rs. 76 lacs approximately along with interest. 5.1. He states that the Petitioner/Non-Claimant in its Statement of Defence at paragraph no. 4, has specifically pleaded that the goods supplied by the Respondent/Claimant were sub-standard and inferior; and these deficiencies were notified to the Respondent/Claimant.

¶22

5.2. He states that it is the case of the Petitioner/Non-Claimant that the third parties to whom the goods (received from Respondent/Claimant) were supplied, notified the Petitioner/Non-Claimant about these deficiencies and, therefore, the Petitioner has raised a plea of set-off for Rs.76 lacs as its defence in the arbitral proceedings. He states that Issue No. 7 was also framed on this defence of the Petitioner/Non-Claimant.

¶23

5.3. He states that the Petitioner/Non-Claimant had filed documents to substantiate its defence set out in paragraph no. 4 of Statement of Defence vide a separate application [under Order VIII Rule 1 (1A) 3A read with Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and Section 23 of the Act of 1996], dated 01.02.2025 which is pending adjudication.

¶24

5.4. He states that vide order dated 06.02.2025, the learned Sole Arbitrator had permitted the Petitioner/Non-Claimant to introduce the additional documents by way of evidence. He states that in its evidence affidavit, the Petitioner/Non-Claimant has elaborated on the defence of set-off at paragraphs 15 to 18 as well as tendered the additional documents

¶25

O.M.P. (COMM) 241/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2025 at 12:42:25

¶28

EX.DW1/7 to EX.DW1/10.

¶29

Mr. Ramnish Khanna, learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent/Claimant states that the Respondent/Claimant has objected to the admissibility of Ex.DW1/7 to Ex.DW1/10 on 21.04.2025. He states that the said objections have been left open to be decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator in terms of order dated 06.02.2025.

¶30

6.1. He states that no objection was raised by him to the assertions made by the Petitioner’s/Non-Claimant’s witness at paragraph nos. 15 to 18 of the Petitioner’s/Non-Claimant’s evidence affidavit.

¶31

6.2. He states that it is the case of the Respondent/Claimant that the Petitioner/Non-Claimant in its reply to the legal notice dated 25.10.2022 had taken the defence that wrong material was supplied. He states that however, the said defence has been altered by the Petitioner/Non-Claimant in its Statement of Defence, wherein the Petitioner has averred that the inferior material had been supplied by the Respondent/Claimant. He states that the plea of third-party rejection was not communicated to the Respondent/Claimant.

¶32

This Court has considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record.

¶33

In view of the Issue No. 7 framed in the arbitral proceedings, the averments of the Petitioner/Non-Claimant at paragraphs nos. 15 to 18 of its evidence affidavit as well as the fact that the learned Arbitrator vide order dated 06.02.2025 has permitted the Petitioner/Non-Claimant to introduce the additional documents at the evidence stage; and in the proceedings held on 21.04.2025, the learned Sole Arbitrator has kept the issue of the admissibility of the said additional documents open, this Court finds that

¶34

O.M.P. (COMM) 241/2025 Page 3 of 4

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2025 at 12:42:25

¶37

there was no necessity for the Petitioner/Non-Claimant to move an application for amendment of its Statement of Defence at the stage of final arguments on 16.05.2025.

¶38

Issue No.7 framed on 14.01.2025 necessarily has to be decided upon by the learned Sole Arbitrator and the rights of the Respondent/Claimant to challenge the decision on Issue No. 7 in the final award, is available to it in law.

¶39

At this stage, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner/Non-Claimant states that in view of the aforesaid observations, the present petition may be disposed of reserving the right of the Petitioner/Non-Claimant to assail the final findings of the award if they are against the Petitioner/Non-Claimant. 11. Needless to state, the Petitioner/Non-claimant is entitled to challenge the final award including the findings on Issue No. 7 in accordance with law. 12. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Claimant as well states that the Respondent/Claimant’s right to address on the merits of the pleas raised by the Petitioner/Non-Claimant in evidence affidavit, specifically at paragraph nos. 15 to 18, may be reserved.

¶40

In this regard, it is observed that the said issue is in the domain of the learned Arbitrator and does not arise for consideration in this petition. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition along with applications stands disposed of.

¶41

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶42

JULY 14, 2025/SV/MG

¶43

O.M.P. (COMM) 241/2025 Page 4 of 4

¶44

This is a digitally signed order.

¶45

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2025 at 12:42:25

M/S Ridley Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Vks Hospitality LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ridley Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Vks Hospitality LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bal Kishan Chandila Vs M/S.Gopal Priya Construction India Pvt. Ltd.

Renu Taneja & Anr. Vs Mayank Singhal & Anr.

M/S Orix Corporation India Limited Vs M/S. Jindal Multitrade Pvt. Ltd.

Declutter Technologies LLP Vs Mr. Tashi Jayaratnam@ Tashi Thlliaut Jayaratnam

M/S. Msd Telematics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mr. Ashmeet Singh

Ramayna Ispat Private Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.