$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 20^th January, 2026 + ARB.P. 1574/2025 JCC INFRAPROJECTS BIL JV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Susshil Daga and Mr. Chitransh Mathur, Advocates Mob: 9829689999 Email: susshil@amicuslegal.in versus NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY JAIPUR RAJASTHAN THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms. Monalisha Pradhan and Ms. Priya Khurana, Advocates Mob: 9810916537 Email: arunima.associate@gmail.com CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):

1. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 24.3 of the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (“EPC”) Agreement dated 30^th September, 2022, entered between the parties for the ―Major Upgradation of Gandhi Nagar – Jaipur Railway Station‖.

2. The petitioner, i.e., JCC Infraprojects BIL (JV), is a joint venture, engaged in the execution of works through competitive tenders floated by various governmental agencies.

3. The respondent no. 1 is responsible for the overall administration, construction and operations of the North-Western Railway Zone, whereas, respondent nos. 2 and 3 are officials of North-Western Railway, Rajasthan, directly connected with the process of inviting competitive bids, finalisation of the Contract Agreement and providing complete facilities required for execution of work related to this Agreement.

4. The respondent no. 2 issued a Notice Inviting Tender (“NIT”) bearing no. NWR-SC-EPC/GADJ-T-921 dated 30^th April, 2022 for procurement of work in relation to the ―Major Upgradation of Gandhi Nagar – Jaipur Railway Station‖.

5. The petitioner participated in the bidding process and was issued a Letter of Acceptance dated 20^th August, 2022, after which the EPC Agreement dated 30^th September, 2022 was executed between the parties thereafter.

6. Disputes have arisen between the parties under the EPC Agreement.

7. It is submitted that under the EPC Agreement, the Arbitration Clause, i.e., Clause 24.3, prescribes a three-tier dispute resolution mechanism, i.e., conciliation, adjudication by a Dispute Adjudication Board and arbitration by a Standing Arbitral Tribunal.

8. It is submitted that the petitioner, in good faith, has on multiple occasions invoked the said mechanism and attempted to resolve the disputes amicably, through representations, conciliatory correspondence and participation in conciliation proceedings. However, such efforts have yielded no resolution.

9. Conciliation between the parties failed. Further, the petitioner, in good faith also sought initiation of the process for constitution of the Dispute Adjudication Board and the Standing Arbitral Tribunal. However, both the processes have remained wholly non-functional and ineffective.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of the failure of the initial two-tiers of the dispute resolution mechanisms, the petitioner issued a Notice dated 01^st August, 2025, under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, invoking arbitration as per the Arbitration Clause, i.e., Clause 24.3 of the EPC Agreement.

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the present petition is not maintainable on account of the multi-tier dispute resolution mechanism under Clause 24 of the EPC Agreement, which envisages conciliation and thereafter resolution of disputes by way of Dispute Adjudication Board, and subsequently through Standing Arbitral Tribunal.

12. It is submitted that the competent authority duly nominated the Dispute Adjudication Board vide letter dated 21^st July, 2025, however, the petitioner, instead of making their submissions, sent the Notice dated 01^st August, 2025, under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act. Furthermore, the Dispute Adjudication Board is currently seized with the matter, and the arbitral mechani