Authority: Delhi High Court (Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia)

Order Date: 07 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: The appellant (an unnamed sub‑contractor) filed multiple applications; respondents include the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and, by implication, the main contractor M/s Cube Construction Engineers Ltd.
  • Background:
  • The appellant earlier filed writ petition W.P.(C) 3723/2025, which was disposed on 26 March 2025 directing DRDO to examine the grievance and take an informed decision.
  • DRDO issued an order on 01 May 2025 responding to the appellant’s representation dated 27 September 2024, stating that the alleged confinement of machinery and equipment was not by DRDO but by the main contractor, Cube Construction Engineers Ltd.
  • The order attached a gate‑pass (Annexure D) listing five specific machineries with their quantities and directed the appellant to remove the equipment from the Air Force Station, Bhuj site.
  • The appellant alleged that Cube Construction Engineers Ltd had confined the machinery since 09 February 2024 and was demanding illegal dues before releasing the assets.
  • Subsequent Proceedings:
  • A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition W.P.(C) 19789/2025 on 14 January 2026, observing that any cause of action would be against Cube Construction Engineers Ltd, not DRDO.
  • The appellant filed intra‑court appeals (CM APPL. 41460/2026, 41462/2026, 41463/2026, 41465/2026) and a condonation application (CM APPL. 41461/2026 & 41464/2026) seeking relief from the dismissal.

Observations & Reasoning

  • The Court noted that the dispute centres on the relationship between the appellant (sub‑contractor) and the main contractor, Cube Construction Engineers Ltd, and not on any direct liability of DRDO.
  • The Court affirmed that the machinery and equipment were under the control of Cube, and DRDO’s order merely facilitated their removal, issuing gate passes for the same.
  • The Court found no substantive ground in the appeal to overturn the Single Judge’s order, as the appellant’s grievance does not give rise to a cause of action against DRDO.
  • The Court also considered the appellant’s claim that additional machinery beyond the five listed in Annexure D existed, but held that such a claim remains a matter between the appellant and Cube.

Final Outcome

  • The application for condonation of delay (CM APPL. 41461/2026 & 41464/2026) was allowed; the delay in filing the appeal and in re‑filing the appeal was condoned.
  • All intra‑court appeals (LPA 476/2026, CM APPL. 41460/2026, 41462/2026, 41463/2026, 41465/2026) were dismissed, confirming the Single Judge’s order dated 14 January 2026.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • All pending applications were dismissed.

Topics: Court Proceedings, Defense Procurement Dispute