Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 732

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
M/s Jiangxi Construction Engineering Group Co Ltd & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
M/s Varaha Infra Ltd. - Respondent
ARB.P. No. 247 of 2026 & I.A. No. 11845 of 2026, O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) No. 23 of 2026 & I.A. Nos. 1536 of 2026 & 11844 of 2026
Decided On : 26-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Advocate with Dr. Farrukh Khan, Ms. Vidhi Jain, Ms. Zainab Khan and Mr. Mohit Garg.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Birthray, Mr. Paras Choudhary, Mr. Nishant Kandpal, Ms. Arunima Singh and Mr. Kartikeya Tripathi.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not require recurring notices under Section 21 for related disputes between the same parties once a prior valid notice has been served, as such notices are not a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite for the commencement of arbitral proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9, 11, 12, 17, 21 - Appointment of arbitrator - Interim measures in arbitration proceedings - Whether fresh notice under Section 21 is mandatory for subsequent arbitral proceedings - Held, the statute does not envisage repeated notices under Section 21 if a valid notice has been previously served to refer disputes to arbitration - Failure to issue a notice under Section 21 is not a fatal defect and is not an absolute mandatory prerequisite for the invocation or commencement of arbitration - Where multiple agreements, settlements, and security instruments form part of a unified commercial arrangement, the disputes arising therefrom are inherently intertwined and must be referred to a single arbitral tribunal to avoid the risk of conflicting findings and multiplicity of proceedings. (Paras 27, 28, 36, 37)

(B) Interim Relief - Application for interim measures - Referral to Arbitral Tribunal - Pending applications seeking urgent interim protection are to be treated as applications before the appointed arbitrator for adjudication. (Para 40)

Facts of the case:
The parties were involved in a joint venture agreement for the execution of infrastructure projects. Subsequent disputes led to the execution of a settlement agreement and a consent arbitral award. Further disagreements emerged regarding contractual compliance, resulting in a threat to the encashment of financial security instruments. The petitioners sought the appointment of an arbitrator and interim measures for asset preservation, while the respondent contested the procedural maturity of the request and the necessity of further arbitration.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the arbitration clauses in the respective agreements were comprehensive and required that all intertwined disputes be adjudicated by a sole arbitrator. The court clarified that the law regarding notices for arbitration does not necessitate repeated notices for subsequent facets of the same core dispute and directed that all pending interim protective measures be consolidated before the newly appointed arbitrator.

Issues: Whether a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Act is required to commence arbitration when a prior notice was served, and whether all dispute-related matters, including interim applications, should be consolidated under a single arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice under Section 21 is intended to define the date of commencement of arbitration for limitation purposes and is not a jurisdictional bar or mandatory pre-condition that must be refreshed for every ancillary disagreement when the parties have already been clearly notified of the intention to arbitrate.

Result: Petitions disposed of; sole arbitrator appointed to consolidate all related claims and resolve both merits and interim applications.

Table of Content
1. factual background leading to breach of settlement and arbitration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
2. parties' contentions regarding breach and necessity of interim relief. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. section 21 notice not strictly required for repeated arbitration. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. intertwined disputes arising from consolidated settlement agreements require unified arbitration. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
5. appointment of sole arbitrator and consolidation of claims. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)

JUDGMENT :

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

1. ARB.P. 247/2026 has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) seeking appointment and/or grant of fresh mandate for the earlier Arbitrator, to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, arising out of and in connection with the Settlement Agreement dated 21st December, 2021 (“Settlement Agreement”), as incorporated into the Consent Arbitral Award dated 23rd February, 2022 (“Consent Arbitral Award”) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, including, disputes arising from the alleged breach, non-compliance, revival of original claims and other consequential and additional claims.

2. O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 23/2026 has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, seeking interim measures for preservation of the subject matter under the Consent Arbitral Award, read with the Settlement Agreement, on the premise of the respondent’s persistent, wilful and fundamental breach of the Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties.

3. As per the facts, culled out from the pleadings and documents on record, the petitioners entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) with the respondent on 31st May, 2017, for the purposes of forming a Joint Venture (“JV”) and for participating in tenders for various construction works issued by the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”) and State Governments.

4. By way of the aforesaid MoU, it was agreed between the parties that the respondent shall arrange only the bid security/earnest money deposit, and upon award of any project to the JV, the petitioners shall arrange the following:

A. Performance Bank Guarantee.

B. Additional Performance Bank Guarantee (if required).

C. Retention Bank Guarantee.

D. Mobilization or Advance Bank Guarantee.

5. It was further agreed upon by the parties that if the petitioners failed to submit the Bank Guarantee in terms of the aforesaid, then it shall not be entitled to receive any fee or compensation.

6. The JV between the petitioners and the respondent was awarded the following three contracts:

a) Upgradation of 6 lane with paved shoulders of Limbdi – Sayla section of NH 8A (New NH 47) from Km. 99+000 to Km. 138+000 on EPC mode in the State of Gujarat (‘Project’) (hereinafter referred to as Package 3 of Gujarat Projects)

b) Upgradation of 6 lane with paved shoulders of Rajkot - Bamanbore section of NH 8B (New NH 27) from Km. 185+230 to Km. 216+000 on EPC mode in the State of Gujarat (‘Project’) (hereinafter referred to as Package 5 of Gujarat Projects)

c) Six lanning of existing 4 lane road from Gundugolanu (Design Km 1023.280) to Kalapurru (Design Km 1050.680) of NH – 5 (New NH – 16) (Design lenth = 27.400 km) in the State of Andhra Pradesh under NHDP Phase-V under Bharatmala Pariyojana on EPC (Engineering Procurement and Construction) Mode (hereinafter referred to as Vijayawada Project)

7. With respect to the aforesaid Engineering, Procurement and Construction Contracts (“EPC Contracts”) mentioned at serial nos. (a) and (b), upon issuance of a Letter of Acceptance dated 01st December, 2017 to the JV by the Government of Gujarat, the petitioners and the respondent executed two separate Joint Venture Agreements dated 31st December, 2017, in respect of Package-3 and Package-5 of the Gujarat Projects. As per the said JV Agreements, the petitioner no. 1 undertook to furnish the Ban

Click Here to Read the rest of this document