MANISHA PROJECTS PVT LTD vs UNION OF INDIA

Judgment text excerpt

$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18.03.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 558/2025 MANISHA PROJECTS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Mahindro, Mr. Rohan Taneja, Mr. Ankush Satija, Mr. Mohit Dagar, Mr. Raghav Kalra, Mr. Animesh Dubey, Ms. Creesha Shastri, Ms. Jhanak Setia and Ms. Radhika Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra CGSC along with Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr. Tribhuvan, Mr. Abhimanyu Asija, Advocates along with Mr. Jagdish Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer. Mr. Chetan Jadon, GP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL) HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 seeking to challenge the Arbitral Award dated 15.08.20252, passed by the learned Arbitral 1 Act 2 Impugned Award Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA O.M.P. (COMM) 558/2025 Page 1 of 5 Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:21:41 Tribunal in the matter titled “Manisha Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India”, wherein the claims of the Petitioner were allowed to the tune of Rs. 31.4 lakhs as against the claims of Rs. 7.2 crores. 2. The sole ground urged in support of the prayer seeking to set aside the Impugned Award is that the Award, having been rendered pursuant to a unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator, as mandated under the arbitration clause contained in the Agreement dated 08.02.2019, is contrary to the settled position of law in this regard. 3. The Arbitration Clause, with respect to the said Agreement is contained in the General Conditions of the Contract, specifically in clause 64. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced herein under for ready reference: “64. (3) Appoi