Delhi High Court Rejects Electronic Enterprises' ₹10 Cr. Claim Against AIR Over Arbitration Testimony

The Delhi High Court on 5 November dismissed a petition filed by S C Gupta, proprietor of Electronic Enterprises, seeking Rs. 10 crore in damages from the Director General, All India Radio (AIR), for alleged defamation arising from testimony given during arbitration proceedings concerning a 1988 microphone procurement tender.

Justice Amit Mahajan held that a writ petition cannot be used to reopen factual disputes settled by an arbitral award, particularly after an unexplained delay of nearly seven years. The Bench held:

“Having participated in the proceedings and having had the opportunity to test the testimony of the witness, the petitioner cannot, especially after a lapse of almost 7 years, use the extraordinary writ jurisdiction as a collateral forum to reopen the factual controversy that already stands settled by the award.”

Gupta claimed to have participated in a tender floated by the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals (DGS&D) in 1988 for the procurement of microphones. Disputes arising from the tender subsequently led to arbitration.

His grievance arose from testimony given by Vijay Prakash Yadav, Deputy Director General of AIR, during the arbitration proceedings. Yadav stated that AIR officers had inspected the factory of AKG Acoustics (India) in Gurgaon, whereas Gupta's factory in Jaipur had not been inspected. Gupta alleged that this statement was false.

The arbitration concluded with an award in December 2019, directing payment of Rs. 1 lakh to Gupta with interest at 9%, while rejecting his remaining claims.

In October 2026, Gupta approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking Rs. 10 crore in damages for alleged defamation, mental agony, physical and social harassment, and suffering caused by Yadav's statement. He also sought production of an inspection report allegedly relating to October 1988.

Gupta did not challenge the arbitral award but sought independent compensation on the basis of testimony given during the arbitration proceedings.

Rejecting the plea, the Court noted that Gupta had participated in the arbitration and had an opportunity to challenge Yadav's testimony through cross-examination. The award had recorded that the witness's material factual statements remained uncontroverted during cross-examination.

It found that the petition suffered from unexplained delay and laches. Nearly seven years had elapsed since the arbitral award, while the tender and the capacity report forming the basis of the controversy dated back to 1988.

Although Article 226 prescribes no statutory limitation period for filing a writ petition, the Bench observed that “unexplained delay and laches disentitles the litigant from grant of discretionary relief.”

Further, it noted that adjudicating Gupta's compensation claim would require examining whether Yadav's statement was false, whether it was made knowingly, and whether it had caused the alleged injury. These were disputed questions of fact that could not appropriately be examined in writ proceedings, particularly when the controversy originated more than three decades earlier.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, along with the pending applications.

Appearances for petitioner (S C Gupta): Appeared in person.