Dismissed

J.P.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd.

Delhi HC16 Sept 2026ARB.P./1086/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for disputes arising from a construction contract. The court found that the original contract had been foreclosed through a tripartite settlement agreement which expressly closed the contract without dispute, arbitration, or legal proceedings and did not contain an arbitration clause. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed along with pending applications.

J.P.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~9

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010287422026

¶4

- ARB.P. 1086/2026 & I.A. 17347/2026

¶5

J.P.G. ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Bipin Kumar Prabhat, Mr. Kislaya Prabhat, Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma and Ms. Rinku Kumari, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Uttam Datt, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sonakshi Singh, Mr. Naman Kumar and Mr. Katyayani Shekhar, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶11

O R D E R % 16.09.2026

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties under a Contract Agreement dated 25.01.2024.

¶13

It is stated that under the Contract Agreement, the Petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of 2^nd Laboratory Building for Translational Health Science and Technology Institute ( hereinafter referred to as the “ THSTI ”) at Faridabad, Haryana ( hereinafter referred to as the “ Project ”).

¶14

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 10:54:32

¶15

Clause 76 of the Contract Agreement contains an arbitration clause. However, since there were disputes regarding execution of the Project, a Tripartite Contractual Settlement Agreement dated 11.02.2026 was entered into between the THSTI, the Petitioner and the Respondent.

¶16

The recital of the Tripartite Contractual Settlement Agreement dated 11.02.2026 is reproduced as under:-

¶17

“12. All Parties mutually agreed that continuation of the existing contract for the revised Scope may lead to unintended delays, cost implications, and potential noncompliance, and therefore it is in the collective interest of all Parties to conclude the current contract through an amicable and lawful settlement.

¶18

13. All three Parties have mutually agreed to close the Contract Agreement through amicable Settlement, without dispute, arbitration or legal proceedings.

¶19

16. The Parties confirm that the discontinuation of the remaining contract work is being undertaken without any fault, deficiency, non-performance or breach on the part of the Contractor, but solely due to the First Party's updated project requirements.

¶20

(Emphasis Supplied) ”

¶21

Similarly, Clause „A‟ and „H‟ is reproduced as under:-

¶22

“A. Foreclosure of Contract

¶23

i) The Contract shall stand foreclosed with immediate effect under the provisions of Clause 58 of the GCC.

¶24

ii) The foreclosure is First Party-initiated, arising out of change in specifications and curtailment of the originally tendered scope of work.

¶25

H. Governing Law and Jurisdiction

¶26

¶27

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India.

¶28

Courts at New Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction.”

¶29

In view of the above, the Contract Agreement dated 25.01.2024 has come to an end and the Tripartite Contractual Settlement Agreement dated 11.02.2026 does not contain an arbitration clause, and therefore, the present petition cannot be entertained by this Court.

¶30

In view of the absence of the arbitration clause, the present Petition is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.

¶31

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶32

SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 Prateek

¶33

J.P.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.P.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases