A party cannot challenge a settlement agreement on grounds of coercion unless substantial evidence proves it was signed involuntarily; arbitration awards remain binding unless set aside by due legal process.

JUDGMENT :

P.M. Manoj, J.

This writ petition was preferred challenging Exts.P13 and P14 orders i.e., the orders passed by the Government directing payment of the dues to the petitioner's company with 9% interest as per the Rules, instead of the awarded interest of 12%. Ext.P14 is the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Project Director KSTP, which is challenged on the ground that it was signed under undue influence and coercion.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the company was awarded the contract work of K.S.T.P - RMC-27 periodic renewal of Thiruvananthapuram – Ponmudi Road from km.0/000 to km 39/000 included in agreement No.21/KSTP/PWD/2004-05 dated 22.12.2004 valued Rs.11,81,15,085/-, which was illegally terminated on 04.10.2008.

3. The dispute pertaining to the contract was referred to arbitration, and a Tribunal consisting of three retired Chief Engineers was constituted. On 10.09.2012, the Tribunal passed an award directing the payment of Rs.5,09,08,618/-, together with interest at 12% per annum from 01.08.2012, until realization. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner was eligible for price adjustments. Both the petitioner and the respondents filed appeals against the award; however, those appeals were dismissed via a common judgment. Consequently, the award dated 10.09.2012 has since attained finality.

4. Facing an acute financial crisis, the petitioner submitted representations Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 seeking early disbursement of the award amount. In these representations, the petitioner undertook that, if the award amount including the accrued interest was paid, they would forgo further legal proceedings challenging the declined portions of their claim. Later, from Ext.P5 communication, it is discernible that, in light of the dismissal of appeals, a legal opinion was sought from the Advocate General, who opined that there is no scope for appeal. A negotiation meeting was conducted between the petitioner and respondents on 25.01.2016 at the KSTP Office. During this meeting, the petitioner expressed willingness to limit the claim for interest on the award amount up to 16.11.2015, provided that payment was made by 31.01.2016. However, this deadline elapsed without payment being made. The petitioner subsequently offered a new condition: offering to waive interest from 01.02.2016 onwards, provided that the payment be released on or before 15.03.2016. In such circumstances, as evident in Ext.P5 and in the light of further directions in the award, it was claimed that, as per the judgment, interest due to the petitioner was from 01.08.2012 till the date of payment.

5. Taking note of the opinion of the Advocate General that there was no scope for further appeal, the matter was placed before the 90^th Steering Committee meeting held on 28.01.2016 for the settlement of yet another Arbitration Case, in which it was decided to forward the document pertaining to this case to the Law Department for opinion.

6. Even after the time limit stipulated by the petitioner lapsed, no payment was made. However, due to financial constraints, the petitioner offered, via letter dated 07.06.2016 (Ext.P6), to reduce the interest rate from 12% to 9%. By a further letter on the same date (Ext.P7), the petitioner reaffirmed their acceptance of 9% per annum on the arbitration award. They also forwarded a calculation statement reflecting this 9% interest, totalling Rs.8,03,79,182/-. Consequently, the Government issued a letter (Ext.P9) directing the Project Director,