* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18.03.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 558/2025 MANISHA PROJECTS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Mahindro, Mr.

Rohan Taneja, Mr. Ankush Satija, Mr. Mohit Dagar, Mr. Raghav Kalra, Mr. Animesh Dubey, Ms. Creesha Shastri, Ms. Jhanak Setia and Ms.

Radhika Agarwal, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra CGSC along with Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr.

Tribhuvan, Mr. Abhimanyu Asija, Advocates along with Mr. Jagdish Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer.

Mr. Chetan Jadon, GP.

CORAM:

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

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, $~38 seeking to challenge the Arbitral Award dated 15.08.2025, Impugned Award, passed by the learned Arbitral

1 Act

Tribunal in the matter titled “Manisha Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India”, wherein the claims of the Petitioner were allowed to the tune of Rs. 31.4 lakhs as against the claims of Rs. 7.2 crores.

2. The sole ground urged in support of the prayer seeking to set aside the Impugned Award is that the Award, having been rendered pursuant to a unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator, as mandated under the arbitration clause contained in the Agreement dated

08.02.2019, is contrary to the settled position of law in this regard.

3. The Arbitration Clause, with respect to the said Agreement is contained in the General Conditions of the Contract, specifically in clause 64. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced herein under for ready reference:

“64. (3) Appointment of Arbitrator :

64. (3) (a)(i) In cases where the total value of all claims in question added together does not exceed Rs. 25, 00, 000 (Rupees twenty five lakh only), the Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of a Sole Arbitrator who shall be a Gazetted Officer of Railway not below JA Grade, nominated by the General Manager. The sole arbitrator shall be appointed within 60 days from the day when a written and valid demand for arbitration is received by GM

64. (3) (a)(ii) In cases not covered by the Clause 64(3)(a)(i), the Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of a Panel of three Gazetted Railway Officers not below JA Grade or 2 Railway Gazetted Officers not below JA Grade and a retired Railway Officer, retired not below the rank of SAG Officer, as the arbitrators. For this purpose, the Railway will send a panel of more than 3 names of Gazetted Railway Officers of one or more departments of the Railway which may also include the name(s) of retired Railway Officer(s) empanelled to work as Railway Arbitrator to the contractor within 60 days from the day when a written and valid demand for arbitration is received by the GM Contractor will be asked to suggest to General Manager at least 2 names out of the panel for appointment as contractor's nominee within 30 days from the date of dispatch of the request by Railway. The General Manager shall appoint at least one out of them as the contractor's nominee and will, also simultaneously appoint the balance number of arbitrators either from the panel or from outside the panel, duly indicating the 'presiding arbitrator' from amongst the 3 arbitrators so appointed. GM shall complete this exercise of appointing the Arbitral Tribunal within 30 days from the receipt of the names of contractor's nominees. While nominating the arbitrators, it will be necessary to ensure that one of them is from the Accounts Department. An officer of Selection Grade of the Accounts Department shall be considered of equal status to the officers in SA grade of other departments of the Railway for the purpose of appointment of arbitrator.”

4. Mr. Ankur Mahindro, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the Petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with a similar clause in the case of Central Organization for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPICV SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture