$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011092082025 + ARB.P. 166/2026, I.A. 1911/2026 & I.A. 1912/2026 GPM LOOMBA SA JV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar & Mr. Nishchaiy Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Iram Majid, CGSC with Mr. Mohd. Suboor, Mr. Amaan & Mr. Saad, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN O R D E R % 04.08.2026 1. This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short „the Act‟) for appointment of a sole arbitrator. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent invited bids on 12.03.2009 for Detailed Engineering and Project Management Consultant (for short „DEPMC‟) for Construction of Residential Accommodation Project at Brichganj, Port Blair (Army), Port Blair (Navy), Port Blair (Air Force) and Carnicobar (Air Force) and the petitioner was the successful bidder. The contract was executed between the parties on 22.05.2009, pursuant to which the petitioner was appointed as DEPMC. The site was handed over on 12.06.2009. On 15.10.2010, the respondent extended the time of preparation and submission of the Detailed Project Reports and a further extension was given on 28.10.2010. 3. The administrative approval for construction of married 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 07/08/2026 at 11:21:27 accommodation at Port Blair- Army, Air Force and Navy was granted on 03.11.2010. The contractor for Port Blair (Army) was appointed on 24.12.2010. Due to the slow progress of work, the work awarded to the contractor was cancelled on 02.11.2013 and was subsequently awarded to another contractor on 28.10.2014. The construction at Port Blair (Army) was completed on 15.05.2018. Dispute arose between the contractor and the respondent qua the construction at Port Blair (Army), which culminated in an award dated 12.06.2023. 4. As regards Port Blair (Navy), the respondent issued a Letter of Acceptance (for short „LOA‟) for construction on 24.12.2010. The work was not completed within the stipulated period and was completed on 20.12.2018. In 2019, dispute arose between the respondent and the contractor and the matter was referred to arbitration wherein the arbitral proceedings are pending. 5. In respect of construction at Port Blair (Air Force), the respondent issued a LOA dated 24.12.2010. The work was delayed and was ultimately completed on 20.02.2019. The arbitration was invoked by the contractor and the proceedings culminated in an award dated 27.12.2023 in favour of the contractor. 6. As regards Car Nicobar (Air Force), the petitioner was paid for two stages. Thereafter the project has not progressed and the respondent is yet to float tenders for construction. 7. The petitioner vide communication dated 01.12.2023 demanded payment of fees towards the additional work carried out beyond the scope of work, the costs incurred due to prolongation of the projects at Port Blair- Army, Navy and Air Force, and interest thereon. 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 07/08/2026 at 11:21:27 8. The respondent rejected the claim on 23.02.2024 on the ground of limitation. Vide communication dated 16.03.2024, the petitioner reiterated the claim and informed the respondent that if the matter was not resolved within 30 days, the dispute would be referred for arbitration under article 17 of the contract. The relevant clause is reproduced below: “ARTICLE 17 SETTLEMENTS OF DISPUTES All disputes, between the parties to the contract (other than those for which the decision of the DGMAP or any other person is by the contract expressed to be final and binding) shall, after written notice by either party to the Contract to the other of item, be referred to sole arbitration of serving officer having degree in Engineering or equivalent or having passed Final/Direct Final Examination of Sub Division II of Institution of Surveyors (India) recognized by the Govt. of India to be appointed by the Engineer-in-Chief, E-in-C's Branch, Kashmir House, New Delhi-11 or Director General of Works if specifically delegated in writing by Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters, New Delhi whose decision shall be final, conclusive and binding. The Arbitration shall be governed by Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Unless both parties agree in writing, such reference shall not take place until after the completion or alleged completion of the Works or termination or determination of the Contract under conditions of this contract. Provided that in the event of abandonment of the works or cancellation of the Contract under conditions of this contract, such reference shall not take place until alternative arrangements have been finalized by the OWNER to get the works completed by or through any other consultant or consultants or Agency or agencies. Provided always that commencement or continuance of any arbitration proceeding hereunder or otherwise shall not in any manner militate against the Owner's right 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 07/08/2026 at 11:21:27 recovery from the consultant as provided in conditions of this contract. If the Arbitrator so appointed resigns his appointment or vacates his office or is unable or unwilling to act due to any reason whatsoever, the authority appointing him may appoint a new Arbitrator to act in his place. The Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration, exparte, if either party, inspite of notice from the Arbitrator, fails to take part in the proceedings. The Arbitrator shall give his reasoned award in writing on all matters referred to him and shall indicate his findings, along with sums awarded, separately on each individual item of dispute. The venue of arbitration shall be such place or places as may be fixed by the Arbitrator in his discretion. The language of the arbitration proceedings and that of all documents any communications between the parties shall be "English". The award of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties to the contract. Notwithstanding the fact that the stations of work are anywhere in India, only the courts at Delhi/New Delhi shall have the jurisdiction to adjudicate and settle any disputes between OWNER and the consultant. No other court outside Delhi/New Delhi shall have any jurisdiction on any matter requiring reference to Civil Court.” 9. The arbitration was invoked under Section 21 of the Act at the instance of the petitioner by issuing notice dated 04.11.2024. On failure to do the needful, the present petition was filed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon article 17 of the contract to contend that the parties had agreed to resolve disputes through 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 07/08/2026 at 11:21:27 arbitration and even after issuance of a notice under Section 21 of the Act, the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contends that the claims are barred by limitation. The argument is that the construction was to be carried out in various phases. The work was completed in 2018-19 and all the claims cannot be raised in the year 2024. It is contended that the dispute between the respondent and the contractor vis-à-vis the construction for Port Blair (Navy) is pending before the arbitrator and till it is finalized, the Stage- 5 payment payable to the petitioner cannot be quantified. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal submits that even as per the respondent, some of the payments were dependent upon the arbitration proceedings pending between the respondent and the contractor which culminated in the years 2023-24 and therefore, the claim is within limitation. 13. The undisputed fact is that the disputes in relation to the Port Blair (Navy) project are still pending in arbitration and that the disputes relating to other completed projects arising from the same tender were pending in arbitration till 2023-24. The respondent has taken the stand that the consultancy fee of the petitioner cannot be quantified till the arbitration is concluded. In these circumstances, prima facie it is not a case of stale claim. 14. The law is well-settled that the scope of reference court under Section 11 of the Act is well defined. Suffice to say that at the stage of reference the court has to satisfy regarding the existence of an arbitration clause and a prima facie arbitrable dispute between the parties. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning., 2024 INSC 532 and held as under: 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 07/08/2026 at 11:21:27 “114. In view of the observations made by this Court in In Re: Interplay (supra), it is clear that the scope of enquiry at the stage of appointment of arbitrator is limited to the scrutiny of prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement, and nothing else. For this reason, we find it difficult to hold that the observations made in Vidya Drolia (supra) and adopted in NTPC v. SPML (supra) that the jurisdiction of the referral court when dealing with the issue of “accord and satisfaction” under Section 11 extends to weeding out ex-facie non-arbitrable and frivolous disputes would continue to apply despite the subsequent decision in In Re: Interplay (supra).” 15. Learned counsel for the respondents on instructions has no objection for referring the matter to arbitration. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents are ad idem that Justice Mr. Rajiv Shakdher (Retd.) be appointed as the sole arbitrator. 17. Accordingly, the petition is allowed by appointing Justice Mr. Rajiv Shakdher (Retd.) (Mobile No.09717495004) as the sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes which have arisen between the parties. 18. Arbitral proceedings will be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). Fee of the Arbitrator shall be fixed as per fee schedule. 19. Before entering upon reference, the learned Arbitrator will comply with Section 12 of the Act. 20. It is made clear that since this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties and has only prima facie satisfied that the entire claim cannot be deadwood. It will be open for the parties to file their respective claims/counter claims before the learned Arbitrator which will be considered in accordance with law. 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 07/08/2026 at 11:21:27 21. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Arbitrator for information. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J AUGUST 4, 2026 Ch 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 07/08/2026 at 11:21:27