Dismissed¶40

Jammu and Kashmir Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India Private Limited

Delhi HC11 May 2026O.M.P. (COMM)/511/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, O.M.P. (COMM) 461/2024, 511/2024, 512/2024, 517/2024 (with I.As for stay and delay); Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (J&K); withdrawal of Section 34 petitions; seat of arbitration — court at Srinagar alone has jurisdiction; J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 596, para 24; Shahdra Project; petitions dismissed as withdrawn; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J.; order dated 11.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal applications taken on record; all four O.M.P. (COMM) petitions, along with pending application(s), dismissed as withdrawn at the petitioner's instance following the Supreme Court judgment in J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India (P) Ltd. (2026 SCC OnLine SC 596). ¶40

Jammu and Kashmir Economic Reconstruction Agency Vs Rash Builders… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the four Section 34 petitions pending before the High Court of Delhi should be permitted to be withdrawn in view of the Supreme Court's ruling (Paragraph 24) that the court at Srinagar, being the seat of arbitration, alone has jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the arbitral award.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Supreme Court judgment and the prayer made in the withdrawal Applications, the Registry is directed to take the Applications on record.

¶39

Key takeaways

The present Petitions, along with all pending application(s), if any, stand dismissed as withdrawn.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 34 — Withdrawal of petitions — Jurisdiction of seat of arbitration. Four petitions (O.M.P. (COMM) 461, 511, 512 and 517/2024) filed by Jammu and Kashmir Economic Reconstruction Agency against Rash Builders India Pvt. Ltd. under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as applicable to the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir), assailing the Arbitral Award dated 15.01.2024 and the Sole Arbitrator's Order dated 12.03.2024, were dismissed as withdrawn. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 596 (dated 15.04.2026), particularly Paragraph 24 — wherein the Supreme Court held that the court at Srinagar, being the seat of arbitration, alone possesses jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 challenge and that the appellant would be at liberty to withdraw the petition relating to the Shahdra Project — the petitioner filed withdrawal applications. The Court directed the Registry to take the applications on record and dismissed the petitions, along with all pending applications, as withdrawn. (Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J.; Order dated 11.05.2026)

¶1

$~36 to 39

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

O.M.P. (COMM) 461/2024, I.A. 43971/2024 (Stay), I.A. 43972/2024 (Delay of 58 days in filing the petition) & I.A. 43974/2024 (Delay of 15 days in Re-filing the petition)

¶4

JAMMU AND KASHMIR ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION AGENCY (J K ERA) RAMBAGH SRINAGAR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Malvica Satija and Ms. Jahanvi Gupta, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

RASH BUILDERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Ms. Renu Gupta and Ms. Pratiksha Jalan, Advocates.

¶8

¶9

O.M.P. (COMM) 511/2024, I.A. 46829/2024 (Delay of 56 days in filing the petition) & I.A. 46830/2024 (Stay)

¶10

JAMMU AND KASHMIR ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION AGENCY .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Malvica Satija and Ms. Jahanvi Gupta, Advocates.

¶11

versus

¶12

RASH BUILDERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

¶13

.....Respondent Through: Ms. Renu Gupta and Ms. Pratiksha Jalan, Advocates.

¶14

¶15

O.M.P. (COMM) 512/2024, I.A. 46832/2024 (Delay of 56 days in filing the petition) & I.A. 46833/2024 (Stay)

¶16

JAMMU AND KASHMIR ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION AGENCY .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Malvica Satija and Ms. Jahanvi Gupta, Advocates.

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 14/05/2026 at 12:14:45

¶19

versus

¶20

RASH BUILDERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

¶21

.....Respondent Through: Ms. Renu Gupta and Ms. Pratiksha Jalan, Advocates.

¶22

¶23

O.M.P. (COMM) 517/2024, I.A. 46931/2024 (Delay of 48 days in filing the petition), I.A. 46932/2024 (Stay) & I.A. 46933/2024 (Ex. From filing certified copies)

¶24

JAMMU AND KASHMIR ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION AGENCY .....Petitioner

¶25

Through: Ms. Malvica Satija and Ms. Jahanvi Gupta, Advocates.

¶26

versus

¶27

RASH BUILDERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

¶28

.....Respondent Through: Ms. Renu Gupta and Ms. Pratiksha Jalan, Advocates.

¶29

CORAM:

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶31

O R D E R % 11.05.2026

¶32

The present Petitions have been instituted under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as applicable to the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, seeking to assail the Arbitral Award dated 15.01.2024 as well as the Order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, on instructions, submits that Applications seeking withdrawal of the present Petitions have been preferred in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J&K Economic

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 14/05/2026 at 12:14:45

¶36

Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India (P) Ltd.² , dated 15.04.2026, particularly Paragraph 24 thereof. It is submitted that though the said Applications have been filed, the same could not be placed on record prior to the present hearing.

¶37

Accordingly, learned counsel has handed over copies of the aforesaid Applications, along with the said Judgment, across the Bar. The said paragraph 24 of the J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency (supra) reads as under:

¶38

“ 24. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order returning the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act cannot be sustained. The court at Srinagar being the court of seat of arbitration, alone possesses the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the challenge to the arbitral award. It was stated at the Bar that after the impugned order, the appellant had filed four separate petitions under Section 34 of the Act before High Court of Delhi. Needless to state that the appellant shall be at liberty to withdraw the petition under Section 34 of the Act relating to Shahdra Project and the fate of remaining three petitions shall abide by this decision.”

¶39

In view of the aforesaid and the prayer made in the Applications, the Registry is directed to take the Applications on record.

¶40

The present Petitions, along with all pending application(s), if any, stand dismissed as withdrawn.

¶41

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. MAY 11, 2026/tk/kr/kv

¶42

2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 596

¶43

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

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 14/05/2026 at 12:14:45

Jammu and Kashmir Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonika Garg Vs Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Anr.

Intex Technologies (India) Limited Vs Imran Ahmed Ansari & Anr.

M/S Technical Consultancy Services Vs Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

Gail (India) Limited Vs Narmada Extrusions Limited

M/S Shanti Developers Vs Virender Singh

Rahul Sibal Vs Anjali Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.