Mbl Infrastructure LTD vs. National Highways Authority Of INDIA

Facts

The Petitioner, MBL Infrastructure Ltd., filed an application under Section XXIII Rule 3 CPC seeking disposal of its petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This was based on a settlement agreement dated 04.11.2024, entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The settlement agreement addresses the resolution of various disputes between the parties concerning a Contract Agreement dated 20.01.2012. The core of the settlement involves NHAI agreeing to pay a full and final settlement amount of Rs. 8,35,08,299/-, including interest up to 30.09.2024, plus applicable GST, and the removal of a Non-Performer Order dated 16.07.2021. The settlement aims to discharge all past, present, and outstanding liabilities, claims, disputes, or counter-claims.

Held

The Court held that the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should be disposed of in terms of the settlement agreement dated 04.11.2024. The Court noted that the Petitioner had filed an application seeking disposal of the petition based on this settlement. The settlement agreement stipulated a full and final settlement amount of Rs. 8,35,08,299/-, including interest up to 30.09.2024, plus GST as per actuals, which would be reimbursed upon proof of deposit. It also included the removal of the Non-Performer Order dated 16.07.2021. The Court found that the parties were bound by the terms of this settlement agreement. Consequently, the Court ordered the disposal of the petition and any pending applications, cancelling the next scheduled date.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should be disposed of in terms of the settlement agreement dated 04.11.2024 between the Petitioner and the Respondent? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that a settlement agreement has been reached with the Respondent, resolving all disputes. They sought the disposal of the petition in accordance with the terms of this agreement, which includes a specific payment amount and the reimbursement of GST upon submission of proof of deposit. The Petitioner relied on the settlement agreement itself as the basis for their prayer. Respondent's Argument: The Respondent did not file any specific arguments against the Petitioner's application for disposal based on the settlement. The judgment indicates that the Respondent was represented, but no opposing arguments are recorded. The settlement agreement was annexed with the application, implying the Respondent's consent or participation in its terms.