$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 253/2025 & CM APPL. 22252/2025 ROADWINGS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ......Appellant Through: Mr. P. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhishek Swarup and Mr.

Chetan Sharma, Advs.

versus CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS ......Respondents Through: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General with Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Mr. R. K. Joshi, Ms. Saumya Tandon, Mr. Sidharth Agarwal, Mr. O. Joshi, Advs. for respondents Mr. Vasuchit Anand, GP with Mr.

Vineet Dhadha, Adv.

% Date of Decision: 17.04.2025 CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G E M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J: (ORAL)

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 1136/2025 titled “Roadwings International Private Limited vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd. Thr its Chairman and Managing Director & Ors.”, whereby Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 253/2025 Page 1 of 11 the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that any challenge to the terms of the settlement agreement must be within the framework and confines of section 73(2) and section 74 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. The appellant’s case is that respondent no. 1 is liable to pay additional amounts under clause 10(b) of the Vivad Se Vishwas-II (Contractual Dispute) Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme”) pursuant to a settlement agreement dated 03.07.2024. This agreement was executed following an Arbitral Award dated 01.06.2022 passed in the appellant’s favour, arising out of a contract dated 18.03.2010 between the parties.

3. Since the award was under challenge by respondent no.1 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the execution was pending adjudication, the appellant submitted a settlement claim of Rs.67,24,23,278.80/- under the Scheme on 31.08.2023 via the Indian Railways E-Procurement System. In response, respondent no.1 offered a settlement amount of Rs.38,48,42,291.85/- on 06.05.2024.

4. The appellant alleges that despite seeking clarification on the calculation of the offered amount, respondent no.1 failed to respond. Consequently, the appellant filed W.P.(C) 7105/2024 on 14.05.2024 seeking revision of the offered amount. However, since the parties were engaged in pursuing an inter-se settlement, the appellant withdrew the petition, which was disposed of by this Court vide the order dated 14.06.2024 observing that the matter stood amicably resolved under the Scheme.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 253/2025 Page 2 of 11

5. A settlement agreement was thereafter signed on 03.07.2024, which the appellant claims was accepted under duress and was not in accordance with the Scheme. It is further stated that the amount offered was accepted under protest, as reflected in protest letters dated 12.11.2024 and 21.12.2024. Since the respondent no.1 did not respond to the grievances of the appellant, the appellant filed the underlying writ petition seeking payment of the difference of the amount payable under the Scheme and the actual amount paid. But the learned Single Judge vide order dated 24.02.2025, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that any challenge to the terms of the settlement agreement must be within the framework and confines of section 73(2) and section 74 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.

6. Mr P Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appears for the appellant and at the outset submits that the primary challenge in the present appeal is with respect to the fundamental issue regarding how the respondent no.1 flouted and violated clause 10(b) of the Scheme and that this flaw has, ipso facto, rendered the Settlement Agreement void ab initio, result