* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20.02.2026 + ARB.P. 254/2026, I.A. 3470/2026 (For Exemption) & I.A.

3471/2026 (For Exemption)

MIS H.R. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Fahim A. Khan, Mr Mohd Yousuf Ali and Mr. Tabish Kamal, Advocates versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (NHIDCL), .....Respondent Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Ms.Tanisha Samanta, Mr. Krishna Chaitanya, Mr. Rajkumar Maurya and Mr. Divyansh Singh Dev, Advocates through vc CORAM:

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

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, $~30, seeks the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes arising out of the Contract Agreement dated 24.03.2021, Agreement

1 Act

2. Learned counsel for the Respondent, at the very outset, raises a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present Petition and draws the attention of this Court to the Notice invoking arbitration dated 28.11.2025.

3. He submits that the present Notice invoking arbitration, as per the terms of Section 21 of the Act read with Clause 26.3 of the Agreement, has not been addressed to the Respondent against whom the reliefs are stated to be sought and thus, the present Petition is not maintainable.

4. A perusal of the Notice dated 28.11.2025 shows that the same has been addressed to the Director General, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and not the Respondent - National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL).

5. He also draws the attention of this Court to the Contract Agreement entered as between the parties and specifically to the Clause 27.13 of the Agreement, which states that any Notice which has to be given to the Respondent Authority has to addressed to the Managing Director of the Respondent Authority.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner does not controvert the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondent.

7. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to advert to Section 21 of the Act, which reads as under:

“21. Commencement of arbitral proceedings.—Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent.”

8. This Court is also guided by the Judgment of this Court in Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Ozone Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7228 wherein the Court clarified that service of a notice under Section 21 of the Act upon the non-claimant/respondent is mandatory, unless expressly waived by agreement, as it is the foundational step that validly commences arbitral proceedings. Such service ensures that the non-claimant is informed of the disputes sought to be referred to arbitration, is given an opportunity to accept or contest claims, raise objections, including limitation or legal bars, propose counterclaims, and participate in the agreed procedure for appointment of the arbitrator, including objecting to any proposed arbitrator‟s ineligibility.

9. In the said judgment, the Court further held that without proper service of this notice on the non-claimant, there can be no consensus on the reference or appointment process, no trigger for court intervention under Section 11, and any arbitration commenced unilaterally would be contrary to principles of consent and natural justice, rendering the proceedings legally unsustainable. The relevant extract of the aforenoted judgement read as under:

“Is the notice under Section 21 mandatory?

23. While the above ground is by itself sufficient to invalidate the impugned Award, the Court proposes to also examine the next ground whether the Respondent could have, without invoking the arbitration clause and issuing a notice to the Petitioner under Section 21 of the Act filed claims dire