Allowed

Nain Singh Tyagi v. Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd.

Delhi HC9 Apr 2026ARB.P./413/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court condoned a 27-day delay in refiling an arbitration petition and allowed the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from purchase orders for optical fibre construction work.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Ms. Pinki, District and Sessions Judge (Retd.), as sole arbitrator; delay of 27 days condoned.

Nain Singh Tyagi Vs Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 413/2026

¶4

NAIN SINGH TYAGI .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. D. Surana and Mr. Arya Hardik, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amitesh Mishra, Ms. Vishakha Jha, Mr. Mrityunjai Singh and Mr. Harshit Gahlot, Advs.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 09.04.2026

¶11

I.A. 6438/2026

¶12

This is an application filed for condonation of delay of 27 days in refiling the petition.

¶13

For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed. The delay in re-filing the petition is condoned.

¶14

ARB.P. 413/2026

¶15

The present petition is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) for appointment of an arbitrator. 5. The brief facts are that the petitioner was the successful bidder I the tender invited by the respondent for the ‘Optical Fibre Construction Work for Indian Navy Link Projects’. On 03.01.2019, respondent issued three letters of intent. Thereafter, three purchase orders dated 15.02.2019 were issued to the petitioner which were subsequently amended, including

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 13/04/2026 at 11:07:03

¶18

additional work orders dated 08.06.2021 and 27.09.2021. Disputes arose between the parties to the lis. The petitioner, by notice dated 04.04.2025 under Section 21 of the Act initiated arbitration proceedings by invoking Clause 13 of the purchase orders. On failure to do the needful, the present petition was filed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents on instructions has no objection for referring the matter to arbitration.

¶20

Accordingly, the petition is allowed by appointing Ms. Pinki, District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) (Mobile No.: 9910384721), as the sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes which have arisen between the parties.

¶21

The fees of the learned Arbitrator will be governed by Schedule IV of the Act. Before entering upon reference, the learned Arbitrator will comply with Section 12 of the Act.

¶22

It is made clear that since this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, it will be open for the parties to file their respective claims/counter claims before the learned Arbitrator which will be considered in accordance with law.

¶23

A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Arbitrator for information.

¶24

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J

¶25

APRIL 9, 2026/Pa

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 13/04/2026 at 11:07:03

Nain Singh Tyagi v. Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nain Singh Tyagi v. Telecommunications Consultants 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

Mukut House Developers Private Limited Vs Uddhav Realtech Private Limited

Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Vs M/S Kapoor Tent and Caterers

Ion Exchange India Ltd. Vs Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd.

Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited Vs Jhabua Power Limited

Bucon Engineers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gail India Ltd.

Roshan Frozen and Cold Storage through Prop Sabharwal Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Celcius Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd.