$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 196/2026 NP INFRAPROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Ms. Pooja Kabra and Mr. Ankur Agnihotri, Advs.

versus M/S JOINT STOCK COMPANY INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION VOZROZHDENIE .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026

1. This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the Act’) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties arising out of MOU dated 30.08.2021.

2. The arbitration clause is clause 33 of the said MOU dated 30.08.2021, which reads thus:

“

33. DIFFERENCES OR DISPUTES/ LEGAL

33.1 MUTUAL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES:

33.1.1 Except where otherwise provided for in this Contract, all disputes shall in the first instant be resolved amicably through mutual discussions, negotiations, deliberations and consultations associating senior executives of both the parties to dispute.

33.2 CONCILIATION

33.2.1 If the efforts to resolve all or any of the disputes through mutual settlement fail, such disputes shall be referred to Conciliation by the appointment of 2 independent persons / parties appointed by each party i.e. 1 by the subcontractor and 1byVOZ who shall further appoint one such presiding sole Conciliator. Such body of conciliators shall act towards conciliation of all such disputes referred to them. The parties shall equally bear the expenses towards such conciliation.

33.2.2 The settlement agreement shall be final and binding on the parties. The settlement agreement shall have the same status and effect of an arbitration award.

33.3. ARBITRATION Subject to the prior compliance to the condition mentioned in clause 2.16 herein above, any dispute between the parties hereto shall be referred to arbitration of two arbitrators, one to be appointed by the Sub Contractor and one to be appointed by VOZ. In the case of a difference of opinion among the said arbitrators the same shall be referred to the decision of an umpire to be selected by the said two arbitrators to act as such umpire. The decisions and awards given by the said arbitrators or the umpire in the case of a tie as the case may be shall be final and binding on the parties hereto and any such reference to the arbitrators shall be deemed to be a reference to arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2021. The venue and jurisdiction for such arbitration shall be New Delhi.”

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that in terms of clause 33.1.1 of the agreement, the petitioner had issued notice of dispute invoking mutual discussion/Negotiation at senior executive level, pursuant to which meeting was held between the parties but no fruitful outcome came out of it.

4. He submits that thereafter the petitioner also availed further remedy in terms of clause 33.2.1 of the said agreement and thus, vide letter dated 12.06.2025 a request was made for conciliation by constituting Conciliation Committee as per the said clause. The petitioner had nominated Conciliator on its behalf and requested the respondent to appointment its conciliator so that as per the agreement Conciliation Committee could be constituted, however, the respondent did not appoint the Conciliator.

5. Rather the respondent issued a legal dated 30.09.2025 asking the petitioner to withdraw the notice, and unilaterally declared that agreement was superseded by second agreement.

6. In this backdrop, the petitioner invoked the arbitration by sending a notice dated 09.10.2025 in terms of Section 21 of the Act.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, issue notice to the respondent by all permissible modes, returnable on 19.02.2026.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J JANUARY 29, 2026 N.S. ASWAL