Disposed

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India (Aai) through Djm/Jt. Gm Engg. (C) Jabalpur Airport

Delhi HC11 Feb 2026O.M.P.(I) (COMM.)/60/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 9 petition alleging violation of an earlier order restraining coercive steps pending arbitration against a compensation demand by AAI. The court found no violation as the impugned letter reflected a fresh quantification, refused relief on the bank guarantee for want of pleading, and directed forthwith constitution of the Dispute Resolution Committee under Clause 25 of the GCC.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Airport… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~41

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 60/2026 & I.A. 3832/2026 (Ex. From filing original/clear and official translation of copies of the annex ures)

¶4

M/S NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Manish Gupta, Mr. Ankit Gupta, Ms. Manaswee Gupta, Mr. Yash Tewari and Mr. Ravi, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (AAI) THROUGH DJM/JT. GM ENGG. (C) JABALPUR AIRPORT

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

Through: Mr. Archit Mishra and Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocates.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶13

O R D E R % 11.02.2026

¶14

The present Petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the following reliefs:

¶15

“A. Pass an order of restraining the Respondent, its officers, agents and representatives from giving effect to, acting upon or enforcing the impugned letter dated 30.01.2026, whereby alleged compensation of ₹5,68,37,792/- under Clause 2 of the Agreement has been demanded, being arbitrary, illegal, pending resolution of disputes through the agreed dispute resolution mechanism/ arbitration;

¶16

B. Pass an appropriate order directing the Respondent to constitute the Dispute Resolution Committee as per Clause 25 of the Agreement and to maintain status quo with respect to the impugned levy till the disputes are duly considered and resolved in accordance with the contractual dispute resolution procedure;

¶17

C. Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to secure the ends of justice and to protect the subject matter of arbitration.”

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 16/02/2026 at 13:00:16

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Order dated 19.01.2026 passed by this Court in O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 20/2026 has not been complied with. He submits that, in terms of the said Order, no coercive steps were to be taken against the Petitioner prior to the crystallisation of the compensation amount. It is contended that the said direction stands violated inasmuch as, on 18.01.2026, a certain amount had already been quantified, as reflected in paragraph 6 of the Letter dated 18.01.2026 issued by the Respondent.

¶21

This Court is of the opinion that the said issue was already canvassed on the previous date of hearing in O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 20/2026, i.e., 21.01.2026, wherein an email dated 21.01.2026 was brought to the attention of this Court, indicating that the Letter dated 18.01.2026 stood withdrawn.

¶22

This Court finds that the reliance placed by learned counsel for the Petitioner on the Letter dated 18.01.2026 to contend that there has been a prior quantification is misconceived, as the perusal of the Letter dated 30.01.2026 reflects that the amount has been quantified at a figure different from that mentioned in the earlier communication, thereby indicating a fresh quantification. In view thereof, the contentions advanced by the Petitioner in respect of the violation of the Order dated 19.01.2026 passed by this Court in O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 20/2026 are not substantiated.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Petitioner also makes an oral request for a stay of encashment of the Bank Guarantee. With due regard to the said submission, it is noted that no such relief has been specifically prayed for in the present Petition, nor has any Bank Guarantee been placed on record. In the absence of an appropriate pleading and

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 16/02/2026 at 13:00:16

¶26

material on record, the said relief cannot be granted.

¶27

Insofar as the reliefs sought in the petition are concerned, it is noted that the Dispute Resolution Committee [“ DRC ”] is required to be constituted in terms of Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract [“ GCC ”]; however, the same has not yet been constituted. 7. This Court is of the considered view that such a delay in constituting the DRC is not conducive to maintaining contractual discipline between the parties. In view thereof, it is directed that necessary steps shall, therefore, be taken forthwith to ensure compliance with Clause 25 of the GCC.

¶28

Accordingly, the present petition, along with pending application, if any, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶29

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. FEBRUARY 11, 2026/tk/her/jk

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 16/02/2026 at 13:00:16

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India (Aai) through Djm/Jt. Gm Engg. (C) Jabalpur Airport

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India (Aai) through Djm/Jt. Gm Engg. (C) Jabalpur Airport

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aveen Kaur Sood Vs Anny Lifestyle Private Limited & Ors.

M/S Sandhu Motor Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rahul Kashyap

M/S Chandrabhan Group & Ors. Vs S. S. Brijbasi and Sons and Others & Ors.

Union of India Vs M/S Vishwa-Bvsr Jv

Ms Shree Binayak Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ms Legit Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Airport Authority of India (Aai) through Djm/Jt. Gm Engg. (C) Safdarjung Airport