M/S a S Patel Vs National Highway Authority of India

$~48

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 146/2026	& I.A. 8946/202	6
M/S A S PATEL		....	.Petiti	oner
Through: versus	Mr. Ivan, Mr. Mr. Raghav Harshvardhan Monika Prakash Mob: 98181559 Email: ivan@sv	Siddharth Srivasta Rathore , Advs. 65 ilegal.com	Agga va, and	rwal, Mr. Ms.

¶4

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, SC with Mr. Adithya Ramani, Advocate for NHAI Mob: 8527585997

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶6

O R D E R % 06.04.2026

¶7

The present petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) seeking interim relief for injuncting the respondent from invoking the performance security surety bond bearing nos. 2123005625510000002 and 2123005625510000003 to the tune of Rs. 3,31,46,877/-.

¶8

There is further prayer for staying the operation of the Letters dated 05^th March, 2026 and 27^th March, 2026, issued by the respondent, by way of which the respondent placed its demands to the petitioner and intimated in relation to invocation performance guarantees.

¶9

Page 1 of 3

¶10

This is a digitally signed order.

¶11

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 08/04/2026 at 12:08:41

¶12

The Court notes that the petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion also and vide order dated 20^th March, 2026 in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 90/2026 , it had been recorded as follows:

¶13

“1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking certain ad interim orders.

¶14

2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, on instructions, submit that they have no objection to the matter being referred to the arbitration.

¶15

3. In terms of Clause 25 of the conditions of contract, they undertake to exchange their respective nominees names within a period of five (05) days from today. Subsequently, the nominated Arbitrators shall, within a period of 5 days thereafter, appoint the Presiding Arbitrator, under the aegis of SAROD Arbitration.

¶16

4. The present Petition, along with pending Application(s), if any, are disposed of, in aforestated terms.”

¶17

This Court records the statement of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid order, they have already nominated their arbitrator.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that though earlier the respondent had not nominated their nominee arbitrator, however, after service of the present petition, a nominee arbitrator has been nominated by the respondent.

¶19

However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent disputes the same and submits that the respondent had nominated their arbitrator on 25^th March, 2026. However, the said arbitrator recused himself from the case, on account of which, a fresh nomination had to be done on 01^st April, 2026.

¶20

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent is already carrying out the deduction from the interim payments of the petitioner. He, thus, submits that once deduction from the interim

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

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 08/04/2026 at 12:08:41

¶23

payment is already being done by the respondent, there is no occasion for the respondent to invoke the performance security surety bonds.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the Interim Payment Certificate (“IPC”)-No.5, has still not been processed by the respondent.

¶25

However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there are numerous defects in the same. 10. This Court notes that in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner, i.e., O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 90/2026 , no interim directions were passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶26

Further, this Court takes note of the fact that pursuant to the order dated 20^th March, 2026 in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 90/2026 , both the parties have already nominated their arbitrators.

¶27

Accordingly, the parties are directed to approach the nominated arbitrators, for the purposes of appointment of the presiding arbitrator under the aegis of the Society for Affordable Redressal of Disputes (“SAROD”) Arbitration.

¶28

All the issues as raised by the petitioner, including, the submissions made under Section 9 petition, shall be allowed to be raised by the petitioner before the learned Arbitral Tribunal in an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act.

¶29

Accordingly, with the aforesaid directions, the present petition, along with the pending applications, is disposed of.

¶30

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶31

APRIL 6, 2026 ak

¶32

Page 3 of 3

¶33

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 08/04/2026 at 12:08:41

M/S a S Patel v. National Highway Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S a S Patel v. National Highway Authority of India

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

Harvinder Singh Sethi Vs M/S Sspb Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Renu Jain & Ors. Vs Pradeep Kumar Jain & Ors.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Adarsh Nobel Corporation Ltd.

Vikas Dagar Vs Vikas Tokas

Sandeep Singh Vs New Land Visas

Sh. Surinder Kumar Shah Vs Mr. Suraj Prakash