$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision : 17.04.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 305/2024, I.A. 34423/2024 (For Stay)

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A. P. Singh, Mr. Naman Saraswat and Mr. Vikas Soni, Advocates versus QINGDAO CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING GROUP COMPANY LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Challa Kodanda Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Angad Mehta and Mr. Ram Babu, Advocates CORAM:

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

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

I.A. 34425/2024

1. The present Application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeks condonation of delay of 17 days in re-filing the present Petition. 2. For the sufficient reasons stated in the Application, the delay is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

I.A. 34422/2024

3. The present Application, filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeks condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the present Petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner submits that the Petition is filed within a period of three months and 30 days, which is within the statutory limit provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and therefore, the said delay may be condoned. 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent fairly submits that he has no objection if the delay in filing the Petition is condoned, since the Petition has been filed within the condonable period.

6. In view of the above, the delay is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

I.A. 10542/2025 (U/O VII Rule 11 R/W Section 151 CPC)

7. The present Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed seeking the rejection of the captioned Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, A&C Act, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

8. At the very outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner submits that the Courts in New Delhi will have jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition and the same is maintainable before this Court since the arbitration proceedings were conducted at New Delhi.

9. It is further submitted that a Petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act came to be filed by the Respondent before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which was rejected on the ground that the Petition was premature and the stage for invocation of the arbitration clause had not arisen.

10. He also submits that the Petition was rejected on the ground that the disputes in respect of the Section 11 Petition pertained to the bidding stage, and the Request for Proposal document dated 23.12.2016, RFP specifically provided that any challenge that pertained to the bidding stage would be entertained only by the Courts of Delhi.

11. The said Judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa came to be challenged by the Respondent before the Apex Court by way of a Special Leave Petition being SLP (C) 3167/2021.

12. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 28.07.2023 set aside the Judgment passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The relevant portion of the observations made by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court reads as follows:

“8. As earlier noted, the RFP document is deemed to be an integral part of this contract. Moreover, this is not a matter at the stage of calling for tenders, and in fact, the work order has already been issued after the execution of the agreement. Therefore, the dispute sought to be raised by the appellant ought to be categorised as differences which were in relation to the contract. On consideration of the materials on record it must be said that the reach of the Arbitration Agreement would also cover those differences which are “in relation to” the contract and the difference arose out of the appellant‟s financial bid and the letter of Award.

9. Here the appell