The case involves M/s Aggarwal Associates (Promoters) Ltd. (referred to as the 'seller') and M/s Sharda Developers (the 'buyer'). The parties entered into two agreements concerning the sale of plots in an integrated township development project, known as "Aditya World City," located in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The seller claimed to be the 'Private Developer' of the township and asserted that it was unable to hand over possession of the plots due to land acquisition issues, which it contended had frustrated the agreements.

The buyer, however, argued that it had made payments in accordance with the agreements and was entitled to possession, claiming that the seller had concealed the project's status and failed to communicate its inability to deliver possession.

During the arbitration process, the buyer filed applications seeking leave to deliver interrogatories and for the discovery and production of documents. The Sole Arbitrator allowed these applications, leading the seller to challenge this decision in court, arguing that it exceeded the scope of the original agreements and related to matters outside the arbitration's purview.

The core of the seller's argument rested on a specific clause in the agreements, which excluded any claims to rights, titles, or interests in other plots within the project. The seller contended that allowing the interrogatories and document requests was not only beyond the agreement's scope but also indicative of bad faith, warranting judicial intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The court noted that the scope of interference in arbitral proceedings is restricted and should only occur under exceptional circumstances. Citing various precedents, the court emphasized that unless there are clear indications of extreme perversity or bad faith, judicial intervention is not warranted.

Upon reviewing the specifics of the case, the court found that the interrogatories sought by the buyer were relevant to the matters in dispute and essential for a fair adjudication of the case. The questions aimed to clarify the status of unsold plots and market prices, which were directly connected to the buyer's claims.

The court determined that the seller could not deny the buyer access to information regarding other unsold plots when it had previously offered alternative plots due to land acquisition issues. The seller’s own communication to the buyer implied an openness to provide relevant details about the project, thereby undermining its argument against the interrogatories.

Additionally, the requests for document production, including correspondences with government authorities regarding land allotment, were deemed necessary for establishing the seller's defense. The court reinforced the idea that all parties must be held to the same standard regarding the information they provide.

In light of the findings, the court dismissed the seller's petitions, affirming the arbitrator's decisions on the interrogatories and document requests. This case underscores the principle that while arbitral decisions are generally respected and only subject to limited review, parties must still adhere to their contractual obligations and the need for transparency in arbitration.

The ruling serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between respecting the arbitral process and ensuring that parties have access to necessary information for a fair resolution of disputes. In doing so, it highlights the judiciary's role in upholding the integrity of the arbitration process while safeguarding the rights of all parties involved.