$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 20^thApril, 2026 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 133/2026, I.A. 8558/2026, I.A. 8559/2026, I.A.

8560/2026 & I.A. 9167/2026 M S LAKSHMI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil K. Airi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Abhimanyu Kumar, Ms. Bindiya L. Airi, Mr. Vishal Tyagi, Ms. Riya Sagar, Ms. Jasmin Sokhi and Mr.

Harsh Gautam, Advs.

M: 9870584901 Email: official.riyasagar@gmail.com versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Tanu Priya Gupta and Ms.

Khushi Sharma, Advs.

M: 9205944009 CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL):

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) seeking stay of the Notice of Intention to Terminate dated 10^th March, 2026, issued by the respondent with respect to the Engineering, Procurement and Construction Contract (“EPC Contract”) dated 27^th October, 2022.

2. There is a further prayer for seeking stay on the invocation of two Bank Guarantees for performance security dated 14^th October, 2022 for an amount of Rs. 16,00,03,841/- and Rs. 2,61,05,730/- respectively, as well as a Surety Bond issued on an amount of Rs. 29,33,40,375/-, submitted by the petitioner to the respondent.

3. The aforementioned EPC Contract had been executed between the parties with respect to “6 laning of the existing 4 lane stretch from Kalkallu at Km. 454.000 to Gundla Pochanpally at Km. 471.000 on Nagpur- Hyderabad Section of NH-44 in the State of Telangana under Bharatmala Pariyojana”. As per the petition, the work under the said EPC Contract could not be completed in time due to defaults attributable to the respondent, such as, non-availability of vacant access to the Right of Way (“ROW”), non-handing over of balance lands, encumbrances in handed over lands, change of scope in the work, delay in permission for tree felling from the Forest Authorities, etc.

4. Pursuant to these disputes, the petitioner and the respondent entered into multiple settlement agreements. However, despite the settlement agreements, the respondent insisted the petitioner to open an Escrow Account with respect to the project in question, which resulted in delay of nearly two months in completion of the project.

5. Thereafter, as per the case of the petitioner, the respondent suddenly issued the aforesaid Notice of Intention to Terminate the EPC Contract between the parties, thereby, frustrating the efforts of the petitioner to expedite the project. Thus, disputes have arisen between the parties.

6. This Court further notes that during the pendency of the present petition, an application being I.A. 9167/2026 was moved on behalf of the petitioner, wherein, it sought stay on the invocation of the Bank Guarantees and the Surety Bond by the respondent vide letter dated 01^st April, 2026.

7. This Court vide order dated 01^st April, 2026, i.e., the first day on which the present matter was heard, had recorded the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that no steps had been taken by the respondent for invocation of the Bank Guarantees or the Surety Bond, as on date.

8. Subsequently, the petitioner received a letter dated 01^st April, 2026 from the respondent, wherein, the respondent indicated its intention to invoke the Bank Guarantees.

9. This Court notes that vide order dated 06^th April, 2026, this Court had recorded the statement made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that only a letter had been written to the petitioner with respect to intention of the respondent to invoke the Bank Guarantees, however, no letter had been written to the bank to invoke the said Bank Guarantees.

10. Today, learned counsel appearing for the respondent confirms that no letter as such, has been written by the respondent to the bank for invocation of Bank Guarantees in question, till date. She submits that this course of action was taken by the respond