$~72-73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1787/2025 & I.A. 26538/2025 M/S RAMACIVIL INDIA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DIRECTOR SH R N GUPTA ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Nayyar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Avinash Trivedi and Mr. Anurag Kaushik, Advs. versus CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THROUGH ITS ADDL DIRECTOR GENERAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly CGSC with Ms Shreya Jetly Adv. and Mr Chaman Lal EE

73 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 447/2025 & I.A. 26536/2025, I.A. 27193/2025 M/S RAMACIVIL INDIA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DIRECTOR SH R N GUPTA ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Nayyar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Avinash Trivedi and Mr. Anurag Kaushik, Advs. versus CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THROUGH ITS ADDL DIRECTOR GENERAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly CGSC with Ms Shreya Jetly Adv. and Mr Chaman Lal EE CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 04.11.2025

1. This is a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the following reliefs against the respondent:

“a. Pass an ex-parte order thereby restraining the Respondent from passing any order in pursuance to the show cause dated

09.10.2025 (Document No. 77) consequently not to levy any compensation under Clause 2 of the GCC since time has not remained essence of contract during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings; And/Or;

b. In-1 alternative to Prayer (a) above, the respondent be restrained from enforcing any order if passed in pursuance to show cause dated 09.10.2025 during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings; And /Or;

c. Pass an order thereby restraining the respondent from taking any furthercoerciveaction againstthe petitioner for theproject in question; And/Or;

d. Pass an order thereby directing the respondent to record completion of the already completed/handed over buildings of the project in terms of Clause 8 of the GCC as requested vide letter dated 07.08.2024 (Document No. 26 ) of the petitioner;

And/ Or;

e. Pass an order thereby directing the Respondent to provide documents as requested by the petitioner in Para 11.6 of the reply dated 16.10.2025 to the show cause notice dated

09.10.2025 for filing of a complete reply by the petitioner;

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was declared a successful bidder and was awarded the work of Construction of Permanent campus under Phase-1 for IIM Jammu at Jagti, Jammu vide Letter of Acceptance dated

16.10.2020.

3. The petitioner submitted Performance Bank Guarantee, security deposit for defect liability period and additional security for electrical works to the tune of about Rs. 27.88 crores.

4. Subsequently, the respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 09.10.2025 under Clause No. 2 read with Clause No. 5 of the General Conditions of Contract stating that the petitioner has delayed the work. The petitioner dulyreplied to the show-cause notice vide letter dated 16.10.2025. The respondent considered the same on 17.10.2025 and held that the petitioner was liable for delay.

5. Pursuant to this a personal hearing was scheduled and vide impugned Order dated 29.10.2025 a compensation of Rs. 37.68 crores was imposed on thepetitioner forthe delay. Out of the said amount,about Rs.5.03 crores has already been adjusted from the bills of the petitioner.

6. Thereafter, the present petition was filed.

7. For the said reasons, issue notice.

8. Mr. Jetly, learned CGSC for the respondent, accepts notice and disputes the jurisdiction of this Court. He also supports the order impugned by the petitioner. He further states the same has been passed in accordance with law.

9. Mr. Nayyar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, relies on the judgmentoftheHon’bleSupremeCourtinJ.G.Engineers(P)Ltd.v.Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 758 and more particularly on paragraph 15 which reads as under:

“15. In fact the question whether the other party committed breach cannot be decided by the party alleging breach. A contra