1 $~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010287062026 + O.M.P. (E) (COMM.) 16/2026 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, Mr. Shyam Aggarwal & Mr. Harsh Nayak, Advs. versus H.K. TOLL ROAD PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Ms. Isha Malik, Mr. Prawar Mishra & Ms. Mitali Jain, Advs. CORAM: JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) MS. KADAMBARI AWASTHI (DHJS) O R D E R % 10.09.2026 O.M.P. (E) (COMM.) 16/2026 1. The captioned petition filed u/Section 27 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act was moved before the Court by the applicant/petitioner seeking assistance in taking evidence. 2. The reply of the above said petition has also been filed by the respondents. 3. The arbitration proceedings between the above captioned parties are currently pending before the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal and the next date as per the submission Ld. Counsel for the applicant is of 18.09.2026 before the Tribunal. The present petition has been moved before this Court to summon the witness from L & T and as well as the EPC Contract between l & T and RIL. It is submitted that since the same has been material bearing on the arbitration 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 16/09/2026 at 12:18:49 2 proceeding as one of the principal claims of the Concessionaire in the arbitration proceedings is for Termination Payment which is determined as per Article 37.3 of the Concession Agreement, which is stated to be predicated on fictitious construction cost and not the real construction cost, that would be reflected from the Contract with L&T. It is also stated that the details of the sub-contract with L&T would be highly relevant for determining the actual project cost which includes the construction cost, which would in turn have a bearing on the claim for termination payment raised by the Claimant. 4. Furthermore, it is also submitted that the concessionaire has not been cooperated in sharing the copy of EPC Contract executed with L& T inspite of multiple communication by the NHI and thus prevented the Tribunal finding a truth. 5. It is also submitted that the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal vide order dated 04.04.2026 granted approval to respondent for filing of present petition u/Section 27 of the ANC Act before the present Court. 6. It is also submitted that no prejudice would be cost to the concessionaire, if the present petition is allowed and the witness from L&T depose before the Tribunal. 7. A prayer is made in clause (a) of the captioned petition to issue summons to the competent officer from M/s. Larsen and Tourbo Limited, ECC Division, Mount Poonamallee Road, Manapakkam, P.B. No. 979, Chennai- 600 089 to produce the original/ copy of EPC 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 16/09/2026 at 12:18:49 3 Agreement executed between Reliance Infrastructure Limited and M/s Larsen & Tourbo Limited relating to the project being augmentation from 4-lane to 6 lane of Hosur - Krishnagiri Section of NH-7 from KM 33.130 to KM 93.00 (Lengh-KM 59.87) in the State of Tamil Nadu before the Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon’ble Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon’ble Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya in the arbitration proceedings titled H.K. Toll Road Private Limited v. National Highways Authority of India. 8. Respondent/non- applicant has filed a reply taking multiple grounds seeking dismissal of the petition. The grounds taken by the applicant are that the petition is not maintainable in the absence of any prima-facie case finding by the Ld Arbitral Tribunal on the relevance of materiality of the L&T Contract. The respondent relied upon judicial precedent as below:- Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Uniper Global Commodities, 2023 SCC Online Del 7586 and Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Garg, 2006 SCC Online Del 1056 9. Ld. Counsel for respondent also taken the ground that in any event, NHAI has failed to establish that the L&T contract is relevant or material to the adjudication of any claim or counterclaim in the arbitral proceedings. Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that the L&T Contract sought to be placed on record is beyond the scope of the present arbitral proceedings and involves non-parties to the arbitration and thus, no direction for 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 16/09/2026 at 12:18:49 4 production of the same is warranted. It is also argued that the present petition is NHAI’S third attempt to place the L&T contract on record, which has been rejected by the Ld. Tribunal twice on previous occasions. Thus, the present petition is an attempt to circumvent the said orders and ought to be dismissed. 10. Heard. 11. Section 27 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides for Court Assistance in taking evidence before Ld. Arbitral Tribunal simpliciter and prescribes the manner and mode as to how and where a witness be summoned before the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal, upon the prima-facie finding by the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal on the relevancy and the materiality for summoning of such witness. The Counsel for respondent argued that no such prima-facie finding is there in the order dated 04.04.2026, it was opined by the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal that “We are inclined to accept this request taking into consideration the scope of scrutiny by this Tribunal in such an application looking to the fact that L&T carried out large part of the project work and permit the Respondent/ Applicant to move the Court for appropriate orders in this behalf…”. 12. In my opinion this observation made by the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal is sufficient enough to make a prima-facie finding upon the relevancy and materiality of the witness to be called. Furthermore, the judicial precedent cited by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent also reiterate the same point. 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 16/09/2026 at 12:18:49 5 13. Hence, the ground of objection taken by the respondent are beyond the purview of Section 27 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Furthermore, the objection taken by the respondent can be very well appraise before competent forum. 14. The captioned petition in hand stands allowed and the witnesses(s) mentioned in para no.(a) of the captioned petition of the prayer clause are summoned as per rules on date already fixed i.e. 19.09.2026 at 12 noon specified by the Ld. Arbitrator upon taking steps by the applicant. 15. Diet money to be paid at the spot. 16. Accordingly, captioned petition stands disposed of. KADAMBARI AWASTHI (DHJS), JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) SEPTEMBER 10, 2026/pk 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 16/09/2026 at 12:18:49