O R D E R

I.A. 593/2026 (by petitioner under Section 151 CPC seeking permission for filing lengthy list of dates and synopsis)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 13/2026

3. The present petition has been filed under Section 9(ii)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking following relief:

a. Grant ad-interim injunction against the Respondent from taking any further coercive steps against the Petitioner pursuant to unilateral Blacklisting/Debarment Order dated 30.12.2025 (IMPUGNED ORDER) issued against the Petitioner; AND/OR

b. Grant ad-interim injunction on the said Debarment Order dated 30.12.2025 during the pendency of the instant Petition; AND/OR

c. Grant ad-interim injunction on the Order imposing recovery of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed against the Petitioner vide the Blacklisting/Debarment Order dated 30.12.2025 through invocation of Clause 4.1 of the Agreement; AND/OR

4. The case set out in the present petition is that the respondent invited bids for tender for the ‘Comprehensive Planning and Designing for Construction of New Blocks, Additional Floors and Re-modelling and Up-gradation of Existing Blocks for Expansion of Government Hospitals situated in North Districts of Delhi’.

5. The bid of the petitioner was accepted at a tendered value of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- vide Letter of Acceptance (LOA) dated 30.01.2016 with the stipulated start date being 21.02.2016 and contractual duration of 90 months.

6. The project was prolonged due to hindrances not attributable to the petitioner, giving rise to the claims including escalation costs and unpaid fee for completed works. The petitioner invoked Clause 6 of GCC of contract agreement through multiple claim-letters between February–March 2023, with no response. A request for appointment of an Arbitrator was sent on 18.04.2023 followed by a reminder dated 12.06.2023 resulting in appointment of a Sole Arbitrator on 01.08.2023.

7. It is stated that the pleadings before the learned Arbitrator are not yet complete. However, in the midst of arbitration, the respondent issued an abrupt, debarment/blacklisting order dated 30.12.2025 whereby a penal recovery of Rs. 50 Lakhs purportedly under Clause 4.1 was imposed.

8. Mr. Kunwar Chandresh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action taken by the petitioner vide letter dated 30.12.2025 is a distinct dispute from the pending arbitral proceedings, since blacklisting is separate in nature and entails grave civil consequences rendering the petitioner ineligible for all government/PSU tenders.

9. He submits that subsequently, a letter dated 02.01.2026 has been received by the petitioner whereby the petitioner has been informed vide meeting notice dated 02.01.2026 about the meeting scheduled for 12.01.2026 in the Office of the Superintendent Engineer of the respondent.

10. It is further stated in the said meeting notice that in the event of petitioner not attending the said meeting or not submitting the pending drawings or not submitting the details/clarification on discrepancies in drawings or non compliance of any issue as mentioned, it will be presumed that the petitioner is not serious in performing the consultancy work as per the contract conditions and hence, appropriate action will be initiated against the petitioner as per the relevant clauses of the agreement, and in that case the remaining work shall be taken up by the department at the risk and cost of the petitioner.

11. Mr. Chandresh also invites attention of the Court to the show cause notice dated 09.09.2025 to contend that the said show cause notice was given to the petitioner to show cause within a period of 07 days from the date of the said notice as to why the following action be not taken:

“1. Penal recovery under Clause 4.1 of the contract should not be initiated for damages caused due to professional negligence.

4. Further punitive action should not be taken as per the professional liabil