$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1939/2025 M/SRAMACIVILINDIACONSTRUCTIONPVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Avinash Trivedi and Mr.Rishank Gola, Advs.

versus M/S WAPCOS LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Mr. Fajallu Rehman, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 10.12.2025

1. This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Contractor, who participated in the tender floated by the respondent for “Engineering Procurement and Construction of the National Institute of Unani Medicine (NIUM), Ghaziabad.” The petitioner was declared as the successful bidder and was subsequently awarded the Contract vide a formal Agreement No.

WAP/RD/NIUM/2018/EPC/dated24.07.2018.

3. The Agreement was governed by the Clause 55 and 56 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), which read as under:

“Clause 55: Dispute Resolution Except where otherwise provided in the contract, all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, design, 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 inany way arising out ofor relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, 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:

• If the EPCContractor considersany work demanded ofhimto 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 Engineer in Charge in writing for written instruction or decisions. Thereupon, the Engineer in Charge shall give his written instructions or decision within a period of one month from the receipt of the EPC Contractor's letter.

• If the Engineer in Charge fails to give his instructions or decision in writing within the aforesaid period or if the EPC Contractorisdissatisfiedwiththeinstructionsordecisionofthe EngineerinCharge,theEPCContractormay,within15daysof the receipt of decision, appeal to the Executive Director, WAPCOS Limited who shall afford an opportunity to the EPC Contractor to be heard, if the latter so desires, and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The Executive Director WAPCOS Limited shall give his decision within 45 days after the EPC Contractor submits the said evidence in support of his appeal. If the EPC Contractor is dissatisfied with this decision of Executive Director, WAPCOS Limited, the EPC Contractor shall within a period of 15 days from receipt of the decision of Executive Director, WAPCOS Limited, shall give notice to WAPCOS Limited intimating its dissatisfaction, failing which the decision of Executive Director, WAPCOS Limited shall be final, binding and conclusive and not referable to adjudication by the arbitration.

•IncasetheEPCContractorisnotsatisfiedwiththedecisionof Executive Director, WAPCOS, he may proceed for arbitration as detailed in Clause 56 of Part A of GCC given herein after.

56: Arbitration • All disputes or differences which may arise between the EPC Consultant and the EPC Contractor/ Contractor in connection with this Contract (other than those in respect of which the decision is expressed in the Contract to be final and binding) shallafterwrittennoticebyeitherpartytotheotherandrequest to the Chairman cum Managing Director of WAPCOS Limited (who will be the appointing authority) be referred for adjudication to the sole