$~55

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ARB.P. 65/2026 & I.A. 590/2026 (Ex. From filing the dim

copies of the documents P-2, P-3 & P-4)

R.K. JAIN AND SONS HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mayank Jain and Ms.Naina

Sharma, Advs.

versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Udit Dedhiya, Standing

Counsel, Ms. Apurva Sachdev and Mr. Preyansh Gupta, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

SHANKAR

O R D E R

% 13.01.2026

1. The present Petition, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeks the appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of various disputes that have arisen as a result of the Contractual Agreement dated 11.10.2017 assigned Identification

No.33/EE/(CP)/2017-18 between the parties.

2. The material on record indicates that the Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of providing services, including manpower in the fields of housekeeping, security, horticulture (landscaping & plantation), etc. The Petitioner was awarded the Contract for the upgradation of the Minto Road section (Package-II) under the NDMC, being the lowest bidder, pursuant to the Letter of Acceptance dated 03.01.2018. The work was completed on 10.08.2018 to the satisfaction of the Respondent, and the final bill

dated 22.01.2019 was duly accepted.

3. The Respondent released the final bill amount and security deposit only on 08.11.2023, after an inordinate delay and without paying interest as stipulated under Clause 9 of the contract. Further, an amount of ₹96,848/- towards differential GST payable under Clause

38 remains unpaid.

4. Despite repeated representations and legal notices, the Respondent failed to resolve the disputes or render any decision under Clause 25 of the Contract. The petitioner initially filed a civil suit, which was withdrawn with liberty to initiate arbitration after the Respondent itself invoked the arbitration clause by filing an application under Section 8 of the Act.

5. Consequently, the Petitioner issued a notice dated 26.08.2025, invoking the arbitration in terms of Clause 25 of the Contractual Agreement dated 11.10.2017.

“CLAUSE 25 Settlement of Disputes & Arbitration "Except where otherwise provided in the contract, all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions here-in before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the cancellation, termination, completion or abandonment thereof shall be dealt with as mentioned hereinafter:

(i) if the contractor considers ony work demanded of him to be outside the requirements of the contract, or disputes any drawings, record or decision given in writing by the Engineer- in-charge on any matter in connection with or arising out of the contract or carrying out of the work, to be unacceptable, he shall promptly within 15 days request the superintending Engineer shall give his written instructions or decision within a period of one month from the receipt of the contractor‟s letter.

If the Superintending Engineer fails to give his instructions or decision in writing within the aforesaid period or if the contractor is dissatisfied with the instructions or decision of the Superintending Engineer, the contractor may, within 15 days of the receipt of Superintending Engineer's decision, appeal to the Chief Engineer who shall afford an opportunity to the contractor to be heard, if the letter so desires, and to offer evidence in support of its appeal. The Chief Engineer shall give his decision within 30 days of receipt of contractor's appeal. If the contractor is dissatisfied with