Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Ahluwalia Contracts India Ltd vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2025
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 933/2025
M/S AHLUWALIA CONTRACTS INDIA LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kunwar Chandresh, Ms. Poonam
Prasad, Mr. Munis Nasir and Mr. Divyansh Singh,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC
with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr. Kritarth
Upadhyay and Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 24.07.2025
1. This petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('1996 Act') for appointment of three-member Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
2. Case of the Petitioner is that Petitioner is a reputed company engaged in the business of building construction in Delhi and various other States in India. Respondent invited Tender for work of "Redevelopment of General Pool Residential Colony at Mohammadpur, New Delhi - Construction of 400 Nos. Type-II and 345 Nos. Type-III General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) on EPC basis". Work was awarded to the Petitioner on 01.09.2017 with stipulated date of start being 22.09.2017 and ARB.P. 933/2025 Page 1 of 3 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 28/07/2025 at 22:27:32 stipulated date of completion being 08.05.2020.
3. Petitioner states that it executed the work as per terms and conditions of the contract despite the fact that site was handed over to the Petitioner on 26.09.2017 with several encumbrances. There were other hindrances at site, including IGL lines, electricity lines, transformers etc., on the site and there was delay in decision regarding translocation of trees from the site. Due to hindrances, Petitioner could complete the work only on 05.11.2022. Several disputes thus arose between the parties and Petitioner invoked Clause 25 of the contract, which is an arbitration clause, whereby parties agreed to refer disputes to arbitration. Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 06.04.2022 with three members and the Arbitral Tribunal entered upon reference on 12.04.2022. Thereafter, further claims arose and were also referred to the same Arbitral Tribunal by way of 2nd and 3rd references.
4. It is stated by the Petitioner that subsequent to the 3 rd reference, Petitioner wrote to the Respondent on 11.07.2023 with respect to non-finalization and non-payment of the final bill and also resubmitted the final bill on 30.03.2024 followed by letter dated 15.07.2024 for payment. By letter dated 22.02.2025, Petitioner invoked modified GCC Clause No. 25 of the contract for reference of the dispute pertaining to 38th and final bill amounting to Rs. 16,28,14,275/- to the existing Arbitral Tribunal, however, there was no response and Petitioner was compelled to file the present petition. Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Gammon India Limited v. National Highways Authority of India, FAO(OS)(COMM) 26/2022 decided on 24.11.2022, where the Court held that if an Arbitral Tribunal has already been constituted for adjudication of claims of either party arising out of the same contract or series of contracts, ARB.P. 933/2025 Page 2 of 3 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 28/07/2025 at 22:27:32 endeavour can be made by the Court under Section 11 of 1996 Act to refer the matter to the same Arbitral Tribunal to avoid conflicting findings.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent, on instructions, submits that Respondent has no objection for referring the dispute related to the 38 th and final bill to the existing Arbitral Tribunal in light of the judgment of this Court in Gammon (supra).
6. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the disputes which are subject matter of this petition pertaining to 38th and final bill are referred to Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Shri Upendra Malik and Shri Sarvagya Kumar Srivastava, as Member Arbitrators and Shri Anil Kumar Verma as Presiding Arbitrator. This would be considered as a separate reference albeit it would be open to the parties to seek consolidation with the pending references for common hearings and common evidence.
7. Learned Arbitrators shall give disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act before entering upon reference. Fee of the Arbitrators will be fixed on the same terms as in the earlier three references.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the respective parties are left open.
9. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
JYOTI SINGH, J JULY 24, 2025/YA/RW ARB.P. 933/2025 Page 3 of 3 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 28/07/2025 at 22:27:32