$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010362912026 + ARB.P. 1374/2026 & I.A. 21294/2026 DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Adarsh Tripathi, Mr. Vikram Singh Baid and Mr. Ajitesh Garg, Advs. versus HPCL RAJASTHAN REFINERY LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Ms. Aastha Sardana, Mr. Krishan Singhal and Ms. Anshika Singh, Advs. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. This Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences which have arisen between the Petitioner and the Respondent in relation to the contract for execution of “Non-Plant Buildings (Package-22) at Rajasthan Refinery Complex at Pachpadra for Rajasthan Refinery Project (RRP)” on an item- rate basis. 2. It is stated that the Respondent issued Letter of Acceptance bearing No. HRRL/LOA/2021/45 dated 13.11.2021 in favour of the Petitioner for execution of the aforesaid works. Thereafter, the Respondent issued a 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:03 Purchase Order dated 28.01.2022, pursuant to which the contractual relationship between the parties came into existence. It is stated that the contract is governed by the Letter of Acceptance, Purchase Order, General Conditions of Contract, Special Conditions of Contract, Reply to Pre-Bid Queries and other contract documents. 3. It is stated that during execution of the project, various disputes and differences arose between the parties on account of repeated delays in issuance of drawings and approvals, non-sequential issuance of drawings, non-availability of hindrance-free work fronts, failure to grant Extension of Time despite directing continuation of works beyond the stipulated period, non-issuance of revised work orders despite substantial descoping of works, withholding of payments and other contractual dues, etc. 4. It is stated that Clause 61 of the Special Conditions of Contract provides that disputes arising out of or in connection with the Agreement shall be resolved by arbitration. The clause further provides that the seat of arbitration shall be New Delhi and that the Courts at New Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction. 5. It is stated that the Petitioner invoked arbitration vide Notice Invoking Arbitration dated 03.12.2025 in accordance with Clause 61 of the Special Conditions of Contract. It is stated that the Respondent in its reply dated 02.01.2026 did not dispute the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement or the arbitrability of the disputes and sought two weeks' time to respond to the Notice Invoking Arbitration. It is stated that since despite exchange of correspondence, the parties have failed to mutually appoint the Sole Arbitrator, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Petition. 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:03 6. Notice in the present Petition was issued on 10.08.2026. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent states that the Respondent has no objection to the present Petition. 8. Accordingly, Justice Sharad Bobde, Former Chief Justice of India (Mob. No: 9871234803) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, along with pending application(s), if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 17, 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:03