Summary: Shankar Agarwal asked for a neutral third party to help settle a disagreement with the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. On February 20, 2026, the Delhi High Court chose Justice Pradeep Nandrajog (Retd.) to be that neutral third party.
Shankar Agarwal and the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited had a deal dated December 15, 2022. This deal included a part that said they would use a neutral third party to solve any disagreements. On December 17, 2025, Shankar Agarwal asked for this process to start.
On January 27, 2026, the Delhi High Court said that if they couldn't work things out in three weeks, it would choose a neutral person to help. The court was ready to act if the attempt to settle things didn't work.
"The process of trying to work things out was not finished within three (03) weeks..."
The lawyer for the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited didn't have any problems with picking a neutral person. They agreed that trying to work things out hadn't been successful in the given time.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar explained the basic rules for choosing a neutral person under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court's job is to make sure the agreement to use a neutral person is real, without getting into the details of the disagreement.
"The check under Section 11(6-A) is only to see if there is an agreement to use a neutral person..."
Both sides agreed to pick Justice Pradeep Nandrajog (Retd.) as the neutral person. The process will follow the rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
"This Court chooses Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nadrajog (Retd.)... to settle the disagreements..."
The court wrapped up the request, making sure that all arguments and responses are left for the neutral person to decide. This decision highlights the court's role in helping set up the process without getting involved in the details of the disagreement.
"Nothing in this order should be taken as the Court's opinion on the details of the disagreement..."
The case is moving forward with the goal of settling the disagreement through a neutral third party, showing that the court supports other ways to solve disagreements outside of traditional court battles.
