$~J * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 17.04.2025 Judgment pronounced on:15.05.2025 + O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 5/2025 M.V. OMNI PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Subodh Kr. Pathak, Mr. Amit Sinha, Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Mr.

Niraj Kumar, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DY CHIEF ENGG NORTHERN RAILWAY & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr. Rajkumar Maurya, GP with Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Saxena, Mr. Mukesh Shukla, Ms. Poonam Shukla, Ms. Reba Jena Mishra, Ms. Harshita Sharma, Advs.

+ O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 6/2025 M.V. OMNI PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Subodh Kr. Pathak, Mr. Amit Sinha, Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Mr.

Niraj Kumar, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DY CHIEF ENGG NORTHERN RAILWAY & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr. Rajkumar Maurya, GP with Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Saxena, Mr. Mukesh Shukla, Ms. Poonam Shukla, Ms. Reba Jena Mishra, Ms. Harshita Sharma, Advs.

+ O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 7/2025 M.V. OMNI PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Subodh Kr. Pathak, Mr. Amit Sinha, Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Mr.

Niraj Kumar, Advs.

Page 1 of 27 Digitally Signed versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DY CHIEF ENGG NORTHERN RAILWAY & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr. Rajkumar Maurya, GP with Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Saxena, Mr. Mukesh Shukla, Ms. Poonam Shukla, Ms. Reba Jena Mishra, Ms. Harshita Sharma, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

J U D G M E N T

1. Since both the parties are common in all the petitions and the reliefs sought are also identical, thepetitions are being decided by this common judgment.

2. These are petitions filed under section 14 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) seeking termination of the mandate of the present Arbitral Tribunal and appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the Contract Agreement bearing No. 47-A/CS/Dy.C.E/C-III/LKO dated 17.06.2016, Contract Agreement bearing No. 43-A/CS/Dy.C.E/C-III/LKO dated 17.06.2016 and Contract Agreement bearing No. 42-A/CS/Dy.C.E/C-III/LKO dated 17.06.2016.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Brief facts are that the petitioner was awarded contractual work of construction. After some negotiations with respect to the rates for the work, the petitioner was awarded Letter of Intent/ Letter of Acceptance and thereafter, the parties entered into a Contract Agreement dated Page 2 of 27 Digitally Signed

17.06.2016.

4. Subsequently, on account of various disputes, the respondent terminated the Contract on 26.12.2018 in O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 5/2025 and O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 7/2025 and on 19.05.2018 in O.M.P. (T)

(COMM.) 6/2025.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to the respondent in terms of Clause No. 64 of the GCC which is the applicable provision for the dispute resolution. Relevant portion of the said Clause is extracted below:-

“64 (1) (i) - Demand for Arbitration In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties hereto as tothe construction or operation of this contract, or the respective rightsand liabilities of the parties on any matter in question, dispute ordifference on any account or as to the withholding by the Railway ofany certificate to which the contractor may claim to be entitled to, or ifthe Railway fails to make a decision within 120 days, then and in anysuch case, but except in any of the “excepted matters” referred to inClause 63 of these conditions, the contractor, after 120 days but within180 days of his presenting his final claim on disputed matters shalldemand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred toarbitration.

64 (1) (ii) - The demand for arbitration shall specify the matters whichare in question, or subject of the dispute or difference as also theamount of claim item wise. Only such dispute(s) or difference(s) inrespect of which the demand has been made, together with counterclaims or set off, given by the Railway, shall be referred to ar