Allowed

Brij Lal and Sons v. Union of India

Delhi HC1 Apr 2026FAO(OS) (COMM)/34/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal challenged an order dismissing an application for costs due to lack of documentary proof. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and revived the cost application to be decided along with a pending Section 34 petition.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 11.11.2025 was set aside. The cost application was revived and held to be decided along with the pending Section 34 petition.

Brij Lal and Sons Vs Union of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~65

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision : 01.04.2026

¶4

- FAO(OS) (COMM) 34/2026

¶5

BRIJ LAL AND SONS

¶6

.....Appellant

¶7

Through: Mr. Tilak Raj Gogia, Appellant in person.

¶8

versus

¶9

UNION OF INDIA

¶10

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Ms. Ankita Bhadouriya and Mr. Fajallu Rehman, Advs.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶13

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. ( ORAL )

¶14

CM APPL. 20415/2026 (Early Hearing)

¶15

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

¶16

The application is disposed of.

¶17

FAO(OS) (COMM) 34/2026, CM APPL. 11726/2026

¶18

This Intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 11.11.2025 passed in OMP (Comm.) No. 258/2020 titled as “ M/s Brijlal & Sons v. Union of India ” whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner has sought cost of

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 2.04.2026 12:29:32

¶21

FAO(OS)(COMM) 34/2026 Page 1 of 3

¶22

the proceedings.

¶23

The learned Single Judge has dismissed the application by stating in paragraph 4 onwards in the following manner:-

¶24

“4. A perusal of paragraph 'J' shows that the petitioner has only paid a sum of Rs. 55,000/- for the second Award. He has multiplied the said figure of Rs. 55,000 into 13 times and has calculated a figure of Rs. 7,15,000/-

¶25

5. On my questioning, it is stated by Mr. Gogia, the petitioner who appears in person that there is no other documentary proof except the payment of Rs. 55,000/-. 6. In the absence of supporting documents, this Court cannot award costs in favour of the petitioner. Additionally, even in the statement of claims filed by the petitioner, no prayer for costs has been made.

¶26

7. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.”

¶27

The submission of the appellant is primarily that the appellant apart from incurring expenses of Rs.55,000/-, has also paid Rs.1,16,000/- as fee to the Arbitrator, as such, the learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the application and in any case, the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) is still pending consideration, the learned Single Judge should have heard and decided the application along with Section 34 petition for the reason the Court, if convinced, could award cost in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.

¶28

Though, the learned counsel for the respondent states that he has no instructions, as a short issue arises for consideration, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the appeal by stating that the learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the application, more so, when the main petition filed under Section 34 of the Act is pending consideration. Surely, the appellant shall be

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 2.04.2026 12:29:32

¶31

FAO(OS)(COMM) 34/2026 Page 2 of 3

¶32

within his right to press for cost during the hearing of the petition under Section 34 of the Act.

¶33

We set aside the order dated 11.11.2025, and hold the appellant shall be within his right to press for cost of Rs. 55,000/- and any other amount, which the appellant may claim as cost, duly supported by documents, before the learned Single Judge.

¶34

The application being I.A. 11934/2025 in OMP (Comm.) 258/2020 is revived to be decided along with the said OMP (Comm.).

¶35

All the contentions of the respondent on the application are left open to be canvassed before the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of the petition under Section 34 of the Act.

¶36

The earlier date already fixed i.e. 14.05.2026 stands cancelled.

¶37

Pending application, if any, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶38

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶39

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶40

APRIL 01, 2026 /sr

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 2.04.2026 12:29:32

¶43

FAO(OS)(COMM) 34/2026 Page 3 of 3

Brij Lal and Sons v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Lal and Sons v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Others Vs Lt Col Ajay Kumar Retd

K.S. Oils Limited Vs Shivang Edibles Oils Limited and Anr. & Anr.

Ms Jk Infrastructure through Authorised Signatory Mr Satyapal Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Ex Nb Sub Madan Pal Singh Tomar

Aryan Yadav Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs 684783 Ex Hfo Brij Kishor Tripathi