$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 03.02.2026 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 41/2026, I.A. 2925/2026 & I.A. 2926/2026 TWENTY FIRST CENTURY MINING PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev K. Kapoor, Ms. Saman Ahsan, Ms. Swastika Chakravarti and Ms. Mimansha Durgapal, Advocates.

versus NOMINATED AUTHORITY MINISTRY OF COAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Abhishek Gupta, CGSC with Mr. Kumar Kartikeya, Mr.Dhananjay Singh and Mr.Chankya Kene, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. The present Petition, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“Act”], has been filed seeking the following prayers:

“(a) Pass an injunction restraining Respondent No. 1, during the pendency of the proceedings between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, from invoking/appropriating/encashing the Petitioner’s Bank Guarantee with reference no. 0896524BG0000547, as amended on 17 May 2025, whether in whole or in part, in furtherance of the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee passed in its meeting dated 6 November 2025 Signature Not Verified and 7 November 2025, and Respondent no. 1’s letter forwarding the same dated 3 December 2025;

(b) Pass and order directing Respondent No. 2 to refuse and return any request from Respondent No. 1 for appropriating a part of the Petitioner’s Bank Guarantee with reference no.

0896524BG0000547, as amended on 17 May 2025;”

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would draw this Court’s attention to the Letter dated 03.12.2025 and submit that as per Para 3 thereof, the Petitioner herein was granted an opportunity to submit a representation in respect of the recommendation by the Scrutiny Committee for invocation of the Performance Bank Guarantee dated with reference no.

0896524BG0000547, as amended on 17.05.2025.

3. He would submit that on the basis of the said Letter, various representations were made and the latest of which is the detailed representation dated 17.12.2025, and no response has been forthcoming from the Respondents herein.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would also draw this Court’s attention to Clause 10 of the Coal Block Development and Production Agreement [“CBDPA”]

dated 17.08.2022, which reads as follows:

“10. EFFICIENCY PARAMETERS

10.1. The conduct of mining operations at the Coal Mine shall be subject to the Efficiency Parameters In bona fide cases of delays not attributable to the Successful Bidder, the Nominated Authority will decide on case to case basis the extension of timeline in Efficiency Parameters. For the said purpose, the Nominated Authority may refer the matter to Scrutiny Committee which will consider the delay caused on case to case basis and furnish its recommendation to the Nominated Authority for taking a decision, 10.2. The Successful Bidder would provide periodic information to the Nominated Authority and the Central Government regarding compliance with the Efficiency Parameters in the manner stipulated in Clause 7 (INFORMATION)

Signature Not Verified

10.3. Any non-compliance with the Efficiency Parameters would result in appropriation of the Performance Security in the manner stipulated in Clause 6 (PERFORMANCE SECURITY) and in case where such non-compliance exceeds for more than three instances, such non-compliance may also result in termination of this Agreement as provided in Clause 26 (EFFECTIVE DATE, TERM AND TERMINATION)”

5. He would submit that, in terms of said Clause, it is apparent that the Nominating Authority is to take a decision in respect of the non- compliance of any deficiency parameters that have been set out in Schedule C of the CBDPA.

6. He would further draw the attention of the Court to Clause 27 of the CBDPA, which sets out the Dispute Resolution Process, and in particular Clause 27.6 thereof, which reads a