$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 1/2026 ROADWAY SOLUTIONS INDIA INFRA LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gopal Jain, Mr. Varun Kalra, Mr.

Pranav Khanna and Mr. Krishnan Kumra, Advs.

Mob: 9871452750 Email: varun.kalra@dsklegal.com versus NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Mr. Abhay Gupta and Ms. Ipshita Dutta, Advs.

Mob: 8377974055 Email: adv.abhaygupta@gmail.com CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 09.02.2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), seeking appropriate interim measures staying the operation and effect of the Notice of Intention to Terminate dated 23^rd December, 2025, issued by the respondent, with respect to the Contract Agreement dated 19^th January, 2024.

2. When the present matter was listed before the Vacation Bench of this Court on 02^nd January, 2026, the learned Vacation Bench passed an interim order in the following manner:

“xxxxxxxxx

21. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that encashment of the insurance surety bonds, aggregating to approximately Rs. 100 crores, before final adjudication would result in grave and irreversible loss and injury to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the respondent is restrained from acting upon the Notice of Intent to Terminate dated 23.12.2025 till the next date of hearing.

xxxxxxxxx”

3. Against, the aforesaid order, an appeal being FAO(OS)(COMM.) 4/2026, was preferred by the respondent herein. Vide judgment dated 13^th January, 2026, the order dated 02^nd January, 2026 passed by the Vacation Bench, was modified by the learned Division Bench in the following manner:

“xxxxxxxxx

39. We have no hesitation in holding that in light of the discussion made hereinabove, the appellant NHAI ought not to have been restrained from proceeding in furtherance of notice of intent to terminate contract dated 23.12.2025. We find the proposal given by learned Solicitor General to be fair and just, that NHAI would not encash the bank guarantee or surety until application under section 9 of the Act of 1996 is decided. Para 21 of the impugned order dated 02.01.2026 passed by learned Single Judge is therefore set aside. The appealisallowed,however,withthefollowingdirections:

(i) The appellant-NHAI shall stand restrained from encashing insurance surety bond(s) and bank guarantee(s) or surety furnished by respondent-contractor until disposal of the application under section 9 of the Actof 1996, which is pending beforethelearnedSingleJudge.

(ii) NHAI shall, however, be free to pass appropriate order pursuant to the notice of intent to terminate the contract dated 23.12.2025 and if deemed expedient, to issue fresh NIT in relation to package no.VIII and engage any other agency/entity to complete constructionof roadcovered by package no. VIII of Delhi-MumbaiExpressway.

(iii) NHAI shall also stand restrained from passing any final order of recovery of the cost from the respondent-contractor, consequent to termination of the contract, till the disposal of applicationundersection9oftheActof1996.

xxxxxxxxx”

4. This Court is informed that against the judgment dated 13^th January, 2026 passed bythe Division Bench, the petitioner herein had approached the Supreme Court byfiling a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2840/2026.

5. The Supreme Court passed order dated 02^nd February, 2026, in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2840/2026, in the following manner:

“1. Heard Mr. C. Aryama Sundram, learned Senior Counsel appearingforthepetitioner.

2. The present Special Leave Petitioncalls in question the correctness of the order dated 13.01.2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 4 of 2026 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. By the said judgment,theDivisionBenchoftheHighCourtwhilesettingasidethe judgmentoftheSingleJudgemadethefollowingoperativeorder:

“38. We feel that the balance of convenience entirely lies inthe favour ofthe nationand citi