Settled Disputes Cannot Be Revived Without Express Reservation Of Future Claims: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 23 July held that parties cannot reopen issues settled through a settlement agreement after acting upon the settlement without reserving any future claims, as such a course would undermine certainty, consistency and finality in disputes.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld an arbitral award granting Atlanta Infra Assets Limited a 53-day extension of the concession period for the Nagpur-Kondhali section of National Highway-6 in Maharashtra, including an additional 28 days for reduced toll collections during the COVID-19 pandemic. He observed:

“It cannot be gainsaid that parties to a lis cannot be permitted to re-open issues which have been determined by way of a Settlement Agreement lest it may lead to uncertainty, inconsistency, and lack of finality to disputes. The findings of the learned Arbitral Tribunal in this context do not suffer from any perversity and are clearly plausible, and within its domain. In any case, findings of fact do not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Act.”

National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) challenged an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against granting relief to Atlanta Infra Assets Limited, formerly known as Balaji Tollways Limited, in relation to the improvement, operation and maintenance of the Nagpur-Kondhali section of National Highway-6 in Maharashtra on a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis.

The dispute arose from a Concession Agreement dated 9 December 2005 between NHAI and Atlanta Infra Assets Limited. The concession period was fixed from 5 June 2006 to 5 June 2026.

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, Atlanta sought a 53-day extension of the concession period comprising 25 days of complete suspension of toll collection and 28 days of reduced toll collections due to travel restrictions. NHAI granted only the 25-day extension.

A separate dispute concerning the de-scoping of service road works had earlier been resolved through a Settlement Agreement recorded on 24 February 2020. NHAI had raised a counterclaim of Rs. 18.75 crore relating to the de-scoping exercise, but the arbitral tribunal held that the issue stood settled and could not be reopened.

Atlanta invoked arbitration on 2 June 2023, and the arbitral tribunal was constituted on 22 April 2024. By its award dated 22 November 2025, the tribunal granted the 53-day concession extension and rejected NHAI's counterclaims.

NHAI argued that the Settlement Agreement only dealt with completion of the remaining service road works and did not extinguish its monetary claim arising from the de-scoping exercise. It also contended that the tribunal wrongly extended the benefit of NHAI's policy circular dated 26 May 2020, which according to NHAI applied only to concession agreements based on the Model Concession Agreement.

Atlanta argued that the de-scoping dispute had been conclusively settled and that NHAI had not reserved any future monetary claims under the Settlement Agreement. It also submitted that it completed the remaining works under the settlement, following which NHAI issued a completion certificate on 8 March 2021.

Rejecting NHAI's challenge, the Court held that the tribunal rightly concluded that the de-scoping dispute was subsumed within the Settlement Agreement and that, after the parties acted upon the settlement, NHAI could not revive the claim through a fresh counterclaim.

The Court held that these were plausible findings of fact that did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. It further held that the tribunal had not rewritten the Concession Agreement but had interpreted it along with NHAI's COVID-19 relief policy to provide compensation for pandemic-related revenue losses.

The Bench also noted NHAI's concession that applying the policy formula would result in an extension of approximately 27 days, holding that the tribunal's grant of 28 days could not be termed patently illegal.

Accordingly, the High Court found no perversity or patent illegality in the arbitral award and dismissed NHAI's petition, upholding the award in its entirety.

For the Petitioner (National Highways Authority of India): Advocate Mr. Gopal Singh

For the Respondent (Atlanta Infra Assets Limited): Advocates Dr. Amit George, Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Mr. Dushyant K. Kaul, Ms. Rupam Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Gandhi.