* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 26.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 11.03.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 463/2023 GALAXY INFRA AND ENGINEERING PVT LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Minakshi Jyoti, Mr. Anmol Jain, Ms. Shakshi Raj & Ms.

Shruti Jain, Advs.

versus PRAVIN ELECTRICALS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Saswat Pattnaik, Ms. Lavanya Pathak & Mr. Akshay Sinha, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

J U D G M E N T

1. This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter „the Act‟) against the award dated

07.08.2023. Brief Facts

2. The petitioner is in the business of providing consultancy services for promotion of electrical supplies and installation, electric design and build, electrical testing and commissioning, power transfer and distribution project, EPC and turnkey projects. The respondent operates in key industrial, commercial and retail sectors. On 26.05.2014, an online tender was invited by the Chief Engineer, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. (for short „SBPD‟) for appointment of implementing agency for execution of R-APDRP (Part-B) Scheme on turnkey basis, for strengthening, improvement and augmentation of distribution system capacity of 20 towns in Patna. The last date for online submission of tender was extended to

08.07.2014.

2.1 The case pleaded is that the respondent approached the petitioner in June 2014 for availing consultancy services for submitting the bid. After availing consultancy services, the respondent submitted technical and financial bid and the tender was awarded. The parties agreed that the project was to be executed by M/s Process Construction & Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. (for short „PCTS‟). Due to non-payment of final invoice dated 01.07.2017 the dispute arose between the parties to the lis. The petitioner on 26.04.2018 issued notice under Section 21 of the Act seeking appointment of an arbitrator in terms of consultancy agreement dated 07.07.2014 (for short „CA‟). The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Act was allowed on 12.05.2020. The decision of this court was challenged by the respondent. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 825 of 2021 decided on 08.03.2021, upheld the appointment of the arbitrator but set aside the judgment to the extent it conclusively recorded finding that an arbitration agreement existed between the parties. The concluding paragraph is as follows:-

Alice in “27. The facts of this case remind one of Wonderland . In Chapter II of Lewis Caroll‟s classic, after little Alice had gone down the Rabbit hole, she exclaims “Curiouser and curiouser!” and Lewis Caroll states “(she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English)”. This is a case which eminently cries for the truth to out between the parties through documentary evidence and cross-examination. Large pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that forms the documentary evidence between the parties in this case remained unfilled. The emails dated 22^nd July, 2014 and 25^th July, 2014 produced here for the first time as well as certain correspondence between SBPDCL and the Respondent do show that there is some dealing between the Appellant and the Respondent qua a tender floated by SBPDCL, but that is not sufficient to conclude that there is a concluded contract between the parties, which contains an arbitration clause. Given the inconclusive nature of the finding by CFSL together with the signing of the agreement in Haryana by parties whose registered offices are at Bombay and Bihar qua works to be executed in Bihar; given the fact that the Notary who signed the agreement was not authorised to do so and various other conundrums that arise on the facts of this case, it is unsafe to conclude, one way or the other, that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. The prima facie review spoken of in Vidya Dhrolia (supra) can lead to only one conclusion on th