2026:BHC-OS:680 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 65 of 2024 ATLANTAA LIMITED …APPLICANT V/s.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...RESPONDENT Mr.S Murlidhar, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms.Aparna Devkar and Ms.Pallak Bhagar, Advocate for the Applicant/Award Holder.

Mr.A.A Kumbhkoni, Senior Advocate, Special Counsel a/w. Ms.Jyoti Chavan, Addl.G.P. and Mr.Vikrant Parshurami, AGP for the Respondent State.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.

RESERVED ON : 18^th DECEMBER 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 05^th JANUARY 2026 ORDER:

1. By this Commercial Execution Application, the Applicant/Award Holder is seeking to execute paragraph 21 of the Arbitral Award dated

12^th May 2012.

2. The award holder is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on business of infrastructure development and the Respondent is the State of Maharashtra.

ARTI VILAS KHATATE Digitally signed by ARTI VILAS KHATATE avk 1/33 Date: 2026.01.12

3. On 12^th April 1999, the award holder bid for a Build, Operate and Transfer Basis (“BOT basis”) tender invited by the Respondent for the work of construction of Mumbra Bypass off Mumbai Pune Road, National Highway No. 4 from Km. 133/800 and joining the existing Mumbai Pune Road at Km. 138/200 in Thane District (the “said work”)

which was accepted by the Respondent by letter dated 26^th May 2000.

4. On 12^th July 2000 the Concession Agreement was entered into between the Execution Applicant and the State of Maharashtra for a period of 6 years and 9 months which was extended to 10 years, 4 months and 25 days by a Supplementary Agreement dated 11^th May

2005. The work was completed in 7 years, 4 months and 7 days.

5. As disputes between the Award holder and the Award Debtor – State arose which could not be settled by following the procedure for settlement, the Award holder invoked arbitration for resolution and appointed its arbitrator. The Respondent – State appointed its arbitrator thereafter and the two arbitrators appointed the third and the presiding arbitrator by mutual consent. After considering the pleadings, appraising and appreciating the evidence, the following award was passed :

(a) We hold that the Claimant is entitled to get from the Respondent an aggregate sum of Rs.58,59,31,595/- (on account of claims as set out in the Chart in para 29) with interest at the contractual rate of 20 percent per annum on the said amount from 1^st October 2009 (the date of commencement of the arbitration) to the date of payment/realization and order;

(b) We further hold that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant a sum of Rs.41,00,000/- by way of costs of the arbitration;

(c) Since in terms of Contract, the Respondent is entitled to extend the concession period on account of reimbursement of amount due to the Claimant, we order and direct the Respondent to work out the period for which the Claimant is entitled to extension of the concession period on the basis of the cash flow submitted by the Claimant in their statement of claims and facts (Annexure CA-VII, page 88 and onwards of CD-I) taking into account the amount determined as payable to the Claimant in terms of clauses (a) and (b) above and to issue the Gazette Notification extending concession period by period so determined within two months from the date of the award;

(d) We also order and direct that in the event of the failure of the Respondent to extend the concession period as directed in (c) above within two months from the date of this award, the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant within one month thereafter the sum of Rs.58,59,31,595/- with interest at the contractual rate of 20 percent per annum on the said amount from 1^st October 2009 to the date of payment/realization and a sum of Rs,41,00,000/- by way of costs of the arbitration.

(e) All other claims and counter-claims are rejected.

6. It is not in dispute that pursuant to a series of challenges, way up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court,