$~85 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010434152026 + ARB.P. 1650/2026 SH. OM PRAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, Advocate. versus I AND FC DEPARTMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD O R D E R % 15.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes arising between the parties in relation to the work of “Improvement of Kabristan at Rajiv Gandhi Nagar in Mustafabad Constituency (AC-69)”. 2. It is stated that the Respondent floated a tender for “Improvement of Kabristan at Rajiv Gandhi Nagar in Mustafabad Constituency (AC-69)”. It is stated that the Petitioner herein applied for the said tender and his quotation was accepted by the Respondent vide Acceptance Letter dated 26.10.2023, for a total contractual amount of Rs.1,73,52,434/-. It is stated that the stipulated period of the contract was 180 days, with the scheduled commencement and completion dates being 09.11.2023 and 07.05.2024, 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 18/09/2026 at 10:54:19 respectively. It is stated that the Petitioner furnished a performance guarantee of Rs.8,70,000/-, and the parties thereafter entered into Agreement No. EE-IV/Agt.113/2023-24, which contained an arbitration clause under Clause 25 of the GCC. 3. The Petitioner states that it mobilised the requisite manpower, machinery and materials and commenced the work. However, the work could not be completed within the original stipulated period on account of various hindrances and impediments, including restrictions imposed under GRAP Stage-III, as well as other hindrances which, according to the Petitioner, were attributable to the Respondent and were duly recorded in the Hinderance Register. It is stated that the Respondent consequently granted successive extensions of time, the last extension being upto 10.10.2025, without levy of compensation. It is stated that the work was ultimately completed on 10.10.2025, and the Respondent issued a Completion Certificate acknowledging the said date. 4. Dispute arose between the parties as the Respondent failed to release the pending amounts. 5. It is stated that Clause 25 of the GCC provides a mechanism for settlement of disputes before arbitration and stipulates that, except where a decision has become final and binding under the contractual mechanism, the disputes are to be referred to arbitration before a Sole Arbitrator appointed by the Chief Engineer, I&FC 6. It is stated that the Petitioner invoked Clause 25 of the GCC vide letter dated 06.05.2026 addressed to the Executive Engineer, setting out its grievances and claims. It is stated that no reply was received to the said communication. Thereafter, vide letter dated 23.05.2026, the Petitioner 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 18/09/2026 at 10:54:19 approached the Superintending Engineer in terms of Clause 25. It is stated that Respondent, vide its letter dated 11.06.2026, denied the claims of the Petitioner, though it did not dispute the existence of the arbitration clause. 7. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid response, the Petitioner, in furtherance of the mechanism contemplated under Clause 25, approached the Chief Engineer vide letter dated 02.07.2026, seeking an opportunity of personal hearing in respect of its legitimate dues, pending payments and disputes. According to the Petitioner, no response was received to the said communication. 8. Thereafter, the Petitioner issued a letter dated 19.08.2026 to the Respondent requesting appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes. Since no reply was received, the Petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, on instructions, state that the Respondent has no objection to the present Petition for appointment of an Arbitrator. 10. Accordingly, Mr. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate (Mob. No: 9810372715) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 11. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and would abide by its rules and regulations. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC. 12. The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within two weeks of entering on reference. 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 18/09/2026 at 10:54:19 13. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law. 14. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the contentions of the parties. 15. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, along with pending application(s), if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 Rahul 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 18/09/2026 at 10:54:19