M/S Sharma Enterprises v. Hindustan Prefab Limited & ANR.

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 569/2025 M/S SHARMA ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Bipin Kumar Prabhat with Mr. Ashok Kr Verma, Mr. Kislaya Prabhat and Ms. Rinku Kumari, Advocates.

(M): 9911371736 Email: prabhatbipin@gmail.com versus HINDUSTAN PREFAB LIMITED & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Varun Nischal with Ms. Urvi Johri and Ms. Shianjany Pradhan, Advocates for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

(M): 7017662374 Email: johriurvi@gmail.com

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 07.05.2026 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties, arising th out of the Contract Agreement dated 20 October, 2016 for "Various Civil Construction Works for Up-gradation of Fire-fighting & Fire detection system at NIHFW Campus, Munirka, New Delhi".

2.

In terms of the directions passed by this Court on the last date of The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

hearing, amended Memo of Parties has been filed by the petitioner, reflecting the petitioner as the proprietor, instead of the proprietorship firm. 3.

The said amended Memo of Parties is taken on record, and reads as under:

4.

This Court notes that when the present matter was listed on 24th February, 2026, the following order came to be passed on the basis of the submissions of the parties:

"

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

xxx xxx xxx"

5.

As recorded in the aforesaid order, this Court was informed that the respondent no. 3, i.e., the National Institute of Health and Family Welfare ("NIHFW"), is the principal of respondent no. 1, while respondent no. 1 is the agent of the said principal.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

6.

This Court notes that when the matter was listed for hearing on 24th February, 2026, the respondent no. 3 - NIHFW, which is the principal body, had been ready to make payments towards the final bill to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not agree to the same, since the respondent no. 3 was not willing to pay the interest component to the petitioner. 7.

Today, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has raised the objection that the petitioner herein had earlier approached the Dispute Resolution Committee ("DRC"), in terms of Clause 25 of the th October, 2016 between the parties. The Contract Agreement dated 20 DRC, by way of its decision dated 15th January, 2025, had rejected the claims of petitioner.

8.

He further submits that since disputes had arisen between the parties, the petitioner and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had tried to resolve the matter, th which culminated into a Project Contract Closure Agreement dated 04 August, 2022 ("Closure Agreement"), wherein, requisite amounts were paid to the petitioner.

9.

It is submitted that in terms of the said Closure Agreement, the petitioner had accorded its satisfaction with regard to the amounts received, by stating that no disputes remained and that it shall not raise any further claim/dispute/litigation or arbitration in respect of the Contract Agreement in question.

10.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 further submits that though payments had been made, as recorded in the Closure Agreement, however, the final bill remained to be paid. The said fact was also recorded as part of the Closure Agreement. 11.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

2 submits that he has no objection if an Arbitrator is appointed for adjudication of disputes. However, he submits that the objection of respondent nos. 1 and 2 with regard to the previous Closure Agreement between the parties be kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator. 12.

This Court notes the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has a claim of Rs. 1,19,78,900/- (Rupees One Crore Nineteen Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Only). 13.

Accordingly, this Court notes Clause 25 of the Contract Agreement dated 20th October, 2016 between the parties, which provides for arbitration in the following manner:

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

14.

This Court further notes that pursuant to the aforesaid Clause, the parties tried to resolve their disputes through the DRC. However, the said The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

process had not been successful, on account of which, the present petition has been filed.

15.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that the arbitration be conducted under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre ("DIAC").

16.

Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, the following directions are issued:

i) Mr. Amrit Pal S. Gambhir, Advocate (Mob: +91-9810082347, +919999983935) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

ii) The arbitration proceedings shall be held under the aegis and Rules of DIAC, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. iii) The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018. iv) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Arbitration Act prior to entering into the reference. In the event of any impediment to the Arbitrator's appointment on that count, the parties are given liberty to file an appropriate application before this Court. v) It shall be open to the respondents to raise counter-claims, if any, in arbitration proceedings.

vi) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including, as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counter-claims and merits of the dispute of all the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator, including the objection of respondent nos. 1 and 2 regarding the Closure Agreement dated 04th August, 2022.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

vii) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two (02) weeks from today.

17.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

18.

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 19.

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator and the Secretary, DIAC, for information and compliance. MINI PUSHKARNA, J MAY 7, 2026 c The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.