M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. through Its Managing Director v. Airport Authority of India (Aai) through Dgm/Jt. Gm Engg. (C) Safdarjung Airport, Engineer-in-Charge

Delhi HC6 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/1734/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NKG Infrastructure Ltd.; Airport Authority of India (AAI); Safdarjung Airport; W.P.(C) 1734/2026; Delhi High Court; Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav; 06.02.2026; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 19/2026; order dated 19.01.2026; Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC); mediation before DRC referral; no coercive steps until compensation quantified and notified; 7 working days; liberty granted to seek fresh Section 9 relief; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to take recourse afresh to Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the writ petition stands disposed of on that footing. ¶¶16

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. through Its Managing Director Vs… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to take recourse afresh to Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the writ petition stands disposed of on that footing.

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, having already taken recourse to Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (interim order dated 19.01.2026 in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 19/2026), could obtain any further measures from this Court at this stage, in view of the timeline constraint for constituting the DRC.

¶¶15

Court's answer

If the petitioner again deserves some measures at this point of time, it will have to take the remedy under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (referred to as 'the Act of 1996'), the petitioner having already availed that remedy earlier.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

Liberty was granted to the petitioner to pursue the Section 9 remedy, and on that basis the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.), Order dated 06.02.2026 in W.P.(C) 1734/2026 (with CM APPL. 8469/2026, CM APPL. 8470/2026, CM APPL. 8471/2026): M/S NKG Infrastructure Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India (AAI) — Petitioner approached under Article 226 of the Constitution citing timeline constraints for constitution of the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC). It had earlier taken recourse to Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and obtained an order dated 19.01.2026 in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 19/2026 (Annexure P-19), whereby the parties consented that, instead of referring the disputes to the DRC, they would first undergo mediation, and AAI undertook not to take coercive steps until the compensation was duly quantified and the petitioner notified, with at least 7 working days after such notification before further steps under the Agreement; on those terms that Section 9 petition stood disposed of. Holding that any measures the petitioner might again deserve at this point would have to be sought under section 9 of the Act of 1996, the learned Judge granted the petitioner liberty accordingly and disposed of the writ petition.

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 1734/2026 and CM APPL. 8469/2026, CM APPL. 8470/2026, CM APPL. 8471/2026

¶4

M/S NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Gupta, Ms. Manaswee Gupta, Mr. Sowmya China, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (AAI) THROUGH DGM/JT. GM ENGG. (C) SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, ENGINEER-IN-CHARGE .....Respondent

¶7

Through: Mr. Counsel ( appearance not given )

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 06.02.2026

¶10

The facts of the case would indicate that on account of some timeline constraint for constitution of the Dispute Resolution Committee (‘DRC’), the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It, however, be seen that the petitioner earlier has taken recourse to remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Vide order dated 19.01.2026 ( Annexure P-19 of the petition ) passed in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 19/2026, the Court has passed following order:

¶11

“ 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, further submits that the Petitioner is agreeable to abide by the terms contained in the said letter, meaning thereby that, instead of referring the disputes to the DRC,

¶12

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 09/02/2026 at 12:57:44

¶13

the parties shall first undergo a process of mediation for the resolution of their disputes.

¶14

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent, on instructions, submits that no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioner till such time as the amount of compensation is duly quantified and the Petitioner is notified thereof. It is further submitted that a clear period of at least 7 working days shall be granted after such notification of quantification of compensation before taking any further steps in terms of the Agreement. 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions and consent of the parties, the present Petition stands disposed of, along with pending application(s), if any, in terms of the observations made hereinabove. ”

¶15

If, at this point of time again, the petitioner deserves some measures, it will have to take the remedy under section 9 of the Act of 1996.

¶16

Accordingly, granting that liberty in favour of the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of.

¶17

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶18

FEBRUARY 6, 2026 aks/ap

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 09/02/2026 at 12:57:44

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. through Its Managing Director v. Airport Authority of India (Aai) through Dgm/Jt. Gm Engg. (C) Safdarjung Airport, Engineer-in-Charge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. through Its Managing Director v. Airport Authority of India (Aai) through Dgm/Jt. Gm Engg. (C) Safdarjung Airport, Engineer-in-Charge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaslon Oversea Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax GST

Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 & Ors.

Karamveer and Ors. Vs MCD and Ors.

Hemant Sharma Vs Rail Land Development Authority and Anr.

Rohit Aggarwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Rita & Ors. Vs Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors.

Anuj Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Sri Saudan Singh Institute of Higher Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Satish Sanpal Vs Bureau of Immigration

Rajendra Lal Virmani Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vijay Kumar Kataria Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ami Sisodiya Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Airport Authority of India

National Agriculture and Consumer Multi State Cooperative of India Limited (Namco Ltd.) Vs Union of India and Another