$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 05.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 01.04.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 378/2024, I.A. 38340/2024 (Stay) & I.A.

10172/2025 (Dir.)

NATIONAL TECHNICAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG with Ms. Arunima Dwivedi CGSC, Ms. Pinki Pawar GP, Ms. Himanshi Singh and Mr. Abhishek, Advocates, Mr. Amit Kumar (NTRO) and Mr.

Bhaskhar Ghosh (NTRO).

versus M/S CORPORATE INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Bharat Arora and Mr. Gourav Arora, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. This Petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act, assailing the Arbitral Award dated 02.04.2024, Impugned Award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings titled as “M/S Corporate Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. National Technical Research Organisation”. By the Impugned Award, the learned Arbitral Tribunal, Tribunal substantially allowed the claims of the Respondent herein.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The Petitioner, National Technical Research Organisation, NTRO floated a limited tender enquiry bearing No. NTRO/CPC/07/2017 dated 09.11.2017 for the supply, installation and integration of a network solution for the establishment of a secure intranet infrastructure at various locations across India.

3. Pursuant to the tender process, a contract dated 10.08.2018 was executed between NTRO and the Respondent, for the supply, installation and integration of a secure and reliable network infrastructure across twenty-three (23) locations, including the establishment of a wide area network and local area networks, together with associated training, testing and support obligations.

4. The said contract also provides for the payment terms between the parties, which are to be made in different stages, and it also contemplated the provision of a comprehensive warranty and incorporated clauses relating to performance milestones, testing procedures, liquidated damages, and performance security.

5. Under the contractual framework, the Respondent was required to furnish a Performance Bank Guarantee, PBG equivalent to ten (10) per cent of the contract value within thirty (30) days of signing the contract, valid up to sixty (60) days beyond the completion of the warranty period and to complete the project within the stipulated

5 Contract

timeline of twenty-eight (28) weeks, i.e. 20.02.2019. The contract further envisaged completion of Acceptance Testing procedures and On-Site Acceptance Tests, OSAT, upon successful completion of which the system would be treated as fully commissioned, and the warranty obligations would commence.

6. The Respondent furnished the PBG to the Petitioner after the execution of the contract, leading to a delay of eighteen (18) days. Besides, during the course of execution of the contract, the Respondent completed the supply of equipment with a delay of twenty-four (24) weeks, and thereby, the Petitioner, as per the contractual terms, released seventy (70) per cent of the payment to the Respondent.

7. It is not in dispute that, in the backdrop of circumstances prevailing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the payment terms inter se the parties were amended, whereby the remaining 30% of the contract price was bifurcated into two components, namely 20% and 10%, to be released upon satisfaction of the Respondent. Pursuant thereto, the amount constituting twenty (20) per cent was released to the Respondent, and the only amount remaining payable to the Respondent was ten (10) per cent.

8. The parties thereafter engaged in the process of finalisation of ATPs, following which phases of OSAT were conducted. During this period, issues arose between the parties regarding the progress of testing, operational readiness of the system, attribution of delays, and compliance with contractual obligations, including re