[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Union Of India Thr Its Commander Works ... vs Ms Amit Brothers & Anr on 25 February, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12089/2024 and CM APPL. 50297/2024, CM APPL.
50298/2024, CM APPL. 50299/2024
Date of Decision: 25.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
UNION OF INDIA THR ITS COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER
HILLS .....Petitioner
Through: Dr.B.Ramaswamy, CGSC.
versus
MS AMIT BROTHERS & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Counsel for R-1 (appearance not
given)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
The grievance raised by the petitioner seems to have arisen out of
non-consideration of the mandate of Clause 70 and Clause 72 of General
Condition of Contract IAFW-2249.
2. The petitioner submits that without consideration of those clauses, the
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:12:08 W.P.(C) 12089/2024 Page 1 of 4 KUMAR KAURAV
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises ("MSME") Council District
Shahdara, Delhi has referred the matter to Delhi International Arbitration
Centre ("DIAC").
3. The Division Bench of this Court in Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Delhi International Arbitration Centre and Others1, has observed that
that an Arbitral Tribunal is well within its power to adjudicate upon its own
jurisdiction. Paragraph no. 15 of the said decision is extracted as under:
"15. It is also clear that under section 16 of the Act, the Arbitral Tribunal
is empowered to consider issues of its own jurisdiction and other legal
objections that the appellant possibly may have. The framework envisaged
under the Act confers independent power upon the Tribunal to
independently assess the merits of the claims and legal issues too. Thus,
the grievances of the appellant can suitably be redressed within the
provisions of the Act, which is a complete code in itself. To a specific
query put by this Court on approaching the Arbitral Tribunal under
section 16 of the Act, the learned senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that once the application under section 16 is dismissed, no
appeal is provided in the statute and the challenge to section 16
application being dismissed must await the passing of a final award to file
an appeal under section 34 of the Act. It must be noted that section 16 of
the Act mandates that the issue of jurisdiction must be dealt first by the
Arbitral Tribunal, before the Court examines the same under section 34 of
the Act. Therefore, the appellant is not left remediless as the statute
provides him a chance of appeal. Under section 34 of the Act, the
aggrieved party has an avenue for adjudicating its grievances against the
award including any orders that might have been passed by the Arbitral
Tribunal acting under section 16 of the Act. This Court is fortified in its
view taken by the Supreme Court in Deep Industries Ltd. v. Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., (2020) 15 SCC 706. The same is extracted
hereunder: --
"22. One other feature of this case is of some importance. As
stated hereinabove, on 9-5-2018, a Section 16 application had
been dismissed by the learned arbitrator in which substantially the
same contention which found favour with the High Court was taken
up. The drill of Section 16 of the Act is that where a Section 16
application is dismissed, no appeal is provided and the challenge
2024 SCC OnLine Del 7029
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:12:08 W.P.(C) 12089/2024 Page 2 of 4 KUMAR KAURAV
to the Section 16 application being dismissed must await the
passing of a final award at which stage it may be raised under
Section 34."
4. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the Court finds that there is no
substance in the instant writ petition. Even otherwise, jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interdict the arbitration
proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional
circumstances.
5. The aforenoted position is settled by the Supreme Court in Bhaven
Construction Vs Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam
Ltd. & Anr., 2 wherein it has been held that the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 is a self-contained and comprehensive code providing for a
complete mechanism for redressal of grievances arising out of arbitral
proceedings. It has further been held that the High Courts, in exercise of
their jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
ought not to interfere with the arbitral process except in rare and exceptional
circumstances, such as where there is a patent lack of jurisdiction, manifest
bad faith, or where no efficacious alternative remedy is available. The
Supreme Court has emphasized the principle of minimal judicial
interference, observing that all objections, including those relating to
jurisdiction, are required to be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal and
thereafter in accordance with the statutory remedies provided under the Act.
6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that no
ground is made out warranting interference in the present matter, and it does
not find it appropriate to interdict the arbitral proceedings.
(2022) 1 SCC 75
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:12:08 W.P.(C) 12089/2024 Page 3 of 4 KUMAR KAURAV
7. Accordingly, the petition, along with pending application(s), if any,
stands dismissed.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
FEBRUARY 25, 2026
aks/ss.
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:12:08 W.P.(C) 12089/2024 Page 4 of 4 KUMAR KAURAV
