$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 287/2026, I.A. 4028/2026 & I.A. 4029/2026 RAJESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mithilesh Jha, Adv.

versus NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Madhu Sweta, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 13.02.2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, in respect of the disputes arising out of the Contract Agreement dated 04^th August, 2025 between the parties, whereby, the petitioner herein was engaged for collection of User Fees at Banaundi Fee Plaza, amongst other services.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had invited bids for the aforementioned purpose by falsely misrepresenting the Annual Potential Collection (“APC”) of the Fee Plaza in question to be Rs. 19.53 Crores, translating into Rs. 5,35,000/- as dailyremittance.

3. The Contract Agreement 04^th August, 2025 had been executed between the parties pursuant to a Letter of Award dated 30^th July, 2025, by way of which, the petitioner’s bid/quote of a daily remittance of Rs. 2,94,288/- had been accepted by the respondent - National Highways Authorityof India (“NHAI”).

4. It is further submitted that in terms of the Letter of Award dated 30^th July, 2025 between the parties, the petitioner had also submitted a Performance Security of Rs. 44,15,000/- with NHAI.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that due to lack of adequate connectivity at the concerned Fee Plaza, the actual toll collections were lower than the APC projected by NHAI at the time of inviting bids, and therefore, the petitioner could not carry out his obligations under the Contract Agreement.

6. He further submits the petitioner had made numerous representations to the NHAI in respect of the delay in commencement of toll collection due to lack of operational readiness of the concerned road as well as lack of adequate connectivity for facilitating collection of toll.

7. The petitioner had subsequently, on 14^th September, 2025, also sought suspension of the work order for collection of toll from the respondent – NHAI, as the same was causing financial burdens to the petitioner. However, despite the same, NHAI directed petitioner to deposit the daily remittance amount.

8. It is submitted that on 22^nd September, 2025, the respondent invited fresh bids for the purpose of engaging another contractor for the purpose of User Fees collection at Banaundi Fee Plaza. Pursuant to such invite, the petitioner invoked the dispute resolution clause being Clause 27 of the Contract Agreement dated 04^th August, 2025, seeking conciliation of the disputes between the parties, in terms of Clause 27(a).

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though a request for conciliation proceedings was made, however, no Conciliation Committee in terms of the aforesaid Clause 27(a), was constituted. Thus, the present petition has been filed, seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

10. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

11. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent raises an objection that the petitioner has not invoked the Arbitration Clause, in terms of Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, i.e., Clause 27(c) in the present case.

12. After some arguments, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that she has no objection if an Arbitrator is appointed, since there is an Arbitration Clause for adjudication of disputes between the parties.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has claims approximatelyto the tune of Rs. 90 Lacs.

14. This Court notes the ‘Arbitration & Conciliation’ Clause between the parties, i.e., Clause 27 of the Contract Agreement dated 04^th August, 2025, which reads as under:

“xxx