$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1261/2025 RUDRABHISHEK ENTERPRISES LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Joydip Bhattacharya, Mr.

Surendera Kumar, Ms. Ipsita Biswas, Advs. versus VARANASI SMART CITY LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Ms. Sthavi Asthana, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 29.10.2025

1. This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent, floated a tender for providing Project Management Consultancy (“PMC”) services for developing, managing, and implementing smart city projects under the Smart City Mission in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner, formed a consortium with M/s Grant Thornton India LLP (“GT”) as the lead member and M/s ANB Consultants as the third member to bid for the said tender. The consortium was declared successful, and a PMC Contract dated 22.05.2017 was executed between respondent as the “Client” and the consortium as “Consultants” for providing project management, design, development, and supervision services. The contract was valid for a period of three years up to 21.05.2020, unless extended by mutual agreement.

3. Before the expiry, the respondent unilaterally extended the contract till 31.08.2020 by invoking the force majeure clause due to the COVID-19 pandemic, without the consent of the consortium or adherence to the prescribed procedure. The respondent also directed the consortium to extend the performance bank guarantee; however, GT and other members refused to continue beyond the original term, and the Contract consequently stood concluded on 21.05.2020, with all dues settled. Thereafter, at the respondent’s request, the petitioner independently continued providing PMC services from June 2020 to December 2020 on existing rates, based on the respondent’s assurance that a separate agreement would be executed for this interim period.

4. A Supplementary Agreement dated 24.12.2020 was executed to cover September - November 2020, and GT issued an NOC on 28.12.2020 allowing direct invoicing by the petitioner.

5. The original Agreement contained an arbitration clause being Clause No. 8.2, which reads as under:

“8.2 Arbitration: In the case of dispute arising upon or in relation to or in connection with the contract between the Employer and the Consultant, which has not been settled amicably, any party can refer the dispute for Arbitration under (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Such disputes shall be referred to an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of 3 (three) arbitrators, one each to be appointed by the Employer and the Consultant. the third arbitrator shall be chosen by the two arbitrators so appointed by the parties and shall act as Presiding Arbitrator. In case of failure of the two arbitrators, appointed by the parties to reach a consensus regarding the appointment of the third arbitrator within a period of 30 days from the date of appointment of the two arbitrators, the Presiding arbitrator shall be appointed by the Secretary of the Ministry I Department. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 and any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof, shall apply to these arbitration proceedings.”

6. Since disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration vide legal notice dated 18.11.2022.

7. In terms of paragraph 4 of the Supplementary Agreement, all terms and conditions of the original Contract were to apply to the Supplementary Agreement, meaning thereby that the arbitration Agreement was also a part of this Supplementary Agreement.

8. Since the petitioner is an MSME, it invoked the jurisdiction of MSME Facilitation Counsel on 01.06.2023 and moved an application under Section 18 of the MSME Act, 2006 before the Facilitation Counsel.

9. The Facilitation Counsel did not appoint any Arbitrator till date and hence, the present petition.

10. Ms. A