$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1944/2025 AJAY MACHINE TOOLS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjoy Bhaumik, Advocate Mob: 9810288405 Email: bhaumik.sanjoy@gmail.com versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Saxena, SPC, Ms. Himani Bhardwaj, GP, Mr. Vaibhav Pundir, AAO and Mr. Abhijeet Soni, Advocate.

Mob: 9811360525 Email: amitspcuoi@gmail.com CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 19.01.2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), thereby, seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for the adjudication of the disputes between the parties, arising out of the Agreement bearing No. 05/EE/CD- 3/2020-21 dated 15^th January, 2021 (“Agreement”), entered into between the parties, by way of which, the petitioner was granted the contract for “Work of Construction of the Field Office for S.I.B. at Karkardooma, Delhi”.

2. It is the case of the petitioner, that the aforesaid Agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent, as per which, the stipulated date for the start of work was 15^th January, 2021 and the stipulated date of completion was 14^th January, 2022. Further, as per the Agreement, the estimated cost of the work was Rs. 86,87,136/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner had rescinded the Agreement on 18^th April, 2024, on account of various delays and defaults, not attributable to the petitioner, and due to non-availability of funds and revised provision of estimated cost.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had sent a letter dated 22^nd February, 2025 to the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Central Public Works Department (“CPWD”), in terms of Clause 25 of the General Conditions of the Contract (“GCC”), thereby, raising certain claims in relation to the Agreement and further calling upon the respondent to release the payments with regard thereto.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner had also sent a letter dated 14^th May, 2025 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, CPWD and sought the payment in furtherance of the claims raised by the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, the respondent vide letter dated 16^th May, 2025 had informed the petitioner to follow the procedure existing in Clause 25 of the GCC in the Agreement.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had further sent a letter dated 27^th May, 2025 seeking release of payments from the respondent and also requesting the respondent to form a Dispute Redressal Committee (“DRC”), for adjudication of the disputes arising out of the Agreement.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent, in response, issued a letter dated 30^th May, 2025, thereby, rejecting the claims of the petitioner.

8. It is submitted that since respondent had failed to form the DRC, within the prescribed time limit of 60 days, the petitioner vide letter dated 27^th September, 2025 invoked Clause 25 of the GCC, in consonance with the Section 21 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes between the parties.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is seeking a claim amount of approximately Rs. 75 Lacs, under various heads, as enumerated in the letters issued to the respondent, along with interest of

18% per annum.

10. It is further submitted that since no reply to the notice dated 27^th September, 2025 has been received by the petitioner, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present petition for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent puts in appearance, who admits to the fact that there are disputes between the parties and which need to be referred to arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Clause, i.e., Clause 25 of the Agreement executed between the parties.

12. This Court notes that the Agreement dated 15^th Janua