Nkg Infrastructure Limited Vs Union of India — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

Nkg Infrastructure Limited Vs Union of India — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Substitution of the incumbent Arbitrator effected in terms of the Act: Mr. Hanif Mohammad, Advocate, requested to enter upon the reference as substitute Arbitrator; Registry directed to send receipt of the order to the Arbitrator through all permissible modes including e-mail; parties' rights and contentions left open to be decided by the substitute Arbitrator on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether, on the parties' common position that the incumbent Arbitrator was conducting proceedings unfairly, passing orders behind the parties' backs and making inadequate progress, he should be substituted under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and a substitute Arbitrator appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

Court's answer

With learned counsel for both parties agreeing (ad idem) that there was an imminent and urgent need for the learned Arbitrator to be substituted, the Court was of the considered opinion that it was necessary to ensure the said Arbitrator is substituted in terms of the provisions of the Act.

Ratio / Principle

Mr. Hanif Mohammad, Advocate, was requested to enter upon the reference as the learned substitute Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

Key takeaways

All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open, to be decided by the learned (substitute) Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.obiter¶6
Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy between the parties.obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral judgment, High Court of Delhi (Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J.), O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 54/2026, decided 18.05.2026. NKG Infrastructure Limited petitioned under Section 14 read with Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against Union of India for substitution of the sitting Arbitrator. Counsel on both sides were ad idem that the learned Arbitrator had not been conducting the proceedings fairly, that orders had been passed behind the back of the parties, and that the progress of the arbitral proceeding was woefully inadequate and fell short of the requirement and mandate of the Act. On that common position, the Court held it necessary to substitute the Arbitrator in terms of the Act and requested Mr. Hanif Mohammad, Advocate, to enter the reference as the substitute Arbitrator; the Registry was directed to send the receipt of the order to the Arbitrator through all permissible modes including e-mail. All rights and contentions were kept open to be decided by the new Arbitrator on their merits, and the Court expressly reserved that nothing in the order expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. The petition, with pending applications, stood disposed of accordingly.

$~62

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 18.05.2026

O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 54/2026

NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Chhindra, Mr. Parth Dhawan and Ms. Pratibha Rathi, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Gupta, CGSC with Mr. Kumar Kartikeya, Mr. Chanakya Kene and Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Advocates.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed under Section 14 read with Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“ Act ”], seeking the appointment of a substitute Arbitrator in substitution of the current learned Arbitrator.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are ad idem that the learned Arbitrator has not been conducting the proceedings in a fair manner. They are also ad idem that orders have been passed behind the back of the parties, and in fact, the progress of the arbitral proceeding is woefully inadequate and falls short of the requirement and mandate of the Act.

Signature Not Verified

O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 54/2026 Page 1 of 2

Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 19.0 5.2026 15:13:23

Since learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are ad idem that there is an imminent and urgent need for the learned Arbitrator to be substituted, this Court is of the considered opinion that it will be necessary to ensure that the said learned Arbitrator is substituted in terms of the provisions of the Act.

Accordingly, this Court requests Mr. Hanif Mohammad, Advocate (Mobile No.9818238292), to enter into the reference as the learned substitute Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes as between the parties.

The Registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to the learned Arbitrator through all permissible modes, including through e- mail.

All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.

Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy between the parties.

Accordingly, the present Petition, along with pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of in the above terms.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. MAY 18, 2026/nd/va/m

Signature Not Verified

O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 54/2026 Page 2 of 2

Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 19.0 5.2026 15:13:23