O.M.P. (COMM) 241/2019 Page 1 of 4 $~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. (COMM) 241/2019 & I.A. 18837/2026 M/S RAVINDRA KUMAR YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate. versus M/S TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shivram, Advocate. CORAM:0 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 21.07.2026 1. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking setting aside of the award dated 14.02.2019 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned award”) passed by the learned sole arbitrator. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner was awarded the work of road construction and upgradation on Dhooma-Kahani Road by Public Works Department, Central Zone, Jabalpur, State of Madhya Pradesh, vide the Work Order No.436/MDR/811/2009-10 dated 30.04.2010 with a scheduled time limit of 15 months for completion of the work. The specified date of completion was stipulated as on 15.08.2011. The works which were awarded to the petitioner are as under: “i) Work (A) Name of work: Scarifying BT surfaces, construction of embankment, hard shoulder and lying and compaction of GSB in 21 km length of Kahani-Dhooma Road, Seoni (MP). ii) Work (B) Name of Work: Execution of cement concrete works on Kahani- Dhooma Road, Seoni (MP). This is a digitally signed order. 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 25/07/2026 at 11:49:04 O.M.P. (COMM) 241/2019 Page 2 of 4 iii) Work (C) Name of Work: Providing manpower and resources for carrying out detailed survey, land acquisition, Liaison with mining and other departments, Lease sanction, Inspection, Testing, Obtaining permission etc. for execution of work of Kahani-Dhooma Road, Seoni (MP) for 21 km length.” 3. It is stated that the petitioner had commenced the works and was in the process of executing the works when arbitrarily and illegally, the respondent terminated the work orders. It is stated the measurement of the work was not taken in the presence of the petitioner by respondent, which caused huge loss to the petitioner. 4. It is stated that having regard to the fact that dispute has arisen between the parties, the Competent Authority had appointed Mr. P.K. Mandal, who was the Executive Director of M/s. Telecommunications Consultants India Limited (TCIL)/respondent, who had passed the impugned award. It is claimed that the arbitrator was biased in favour of respondent from the commencement of the arbitral proceedings itself, which is one of the grounds raised in the present petition. The impugned award was finally passed by the sole arbitrator on 14.02.2019. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. There is no dispute that the arbitrator who was appointed and had passed the impugned award, infact, was the Executive Director of respondent/TCIL. Having regard thereto, and also to the fact that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification vs. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) reported in (2025) 4 SCC 641 has held that such appointments are proscribed in law. The extract of relevant paragraphs of the said judgement are as under: “77. The principle of nemo judex is based on the precept that justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. [R. v. This is a digitally signed order. 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 25/07/2026 at 11:49:04 O.M.P. (COMM) 241/2019 Page 3 of 4 Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy, (1924) 1 KB 256] The principle of nemo judex applies to judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative proceedings. [J. Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa, (1984) 4 SCC 103, para 9] An adjudicator should be disinterested and unbiased. [A.K. Roy v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 271, para 97 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 152] A bias is a predisposition to decide for or against one party, without proper regard to the true merits of the dispute. [State of T.N. v. Munuswamy Mudaliar, 1988 Supp SCC 651, para 12]. xx xx xx 122. The proviso to Section 12(5) is a reflection of the common law doctrine of necessity. The nemo judex rule is subject to the doctrine of necessity and yields to it. [Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398, para 101 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672; Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 664 : (1981) 51 Comp Cas 210, para 44] The doctrine of necessity allows an adjudicator who may be disqualified because of their interest in the matter to continue to adjudicate because of the necessity of the circumstances. [Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613, para 105] The proviso to Section 12(5) allows parties to exercise their autonomy to determine if there is a necessity to waive the applicability of the ineligibility prescribed under Section 12(5). Thus, common law principles and doctrines are adjusted to subserve the fundamental principles of arbitration by giving priority to the autonomy of parties. xx xx xx 137. Given the above discussion, it needs reiteration that the Arbitration Act does not prohibit PSUs from empanelling potential arbitrators. However, an arbitration clause cannot mandate the other party to select its arbitrator from the panel curated by PSUs. The PSUs can give a choice to the other party to select its arbitrators from the curated list provided the other party expressly waives the applicability of the nemo judex rule.” 7. Having regard thereto, it is apparent that the impugned award dated 14.02.2019 passed by Mr. P.K. Mandal, who was the then Executive Director of respondent/TCIL, is unsustainable in law. 8. Mr. Shivram, learned counsel appearing for respondent fairly concedes to the point of law which has been authoritatively decided by the Supreme Court in the judgment of CORE (supra). As a result thereof, the impugned award is set-aside. 9. The parties are ad-idem that the disputes which were subject matter of This is a digitally signed order. 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 25/07/2026 at 11:49:04 O.M.P. (COMM) 241/2019 Page 4 of 4 the impugned award needs to be arbitrated, and that this Court may appoint a suitable arbitrator. 10. Accordingly, Mr. Udai Khanna (Mob: 9540954431) is appointed as the Arbitrator to consider the claims of the parties which includes the counter claim also. The fees of the arbitrator shall be governed under Schedule IV of the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. The proceedings shall be carried out under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre. 11. Needless to observe that the arbitrator shall proceed with the arbitral proceedings de novo and not being influenced by any observations made in the impugned award. 12. The petition is disposed of alongwith all the pending applications. TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JULY 21, 2026 kct/rl This is a digitally signed order. 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 25/07/2026 at 11:49:04