$~1 (Original Jurisdiction) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1843/2024 M/S. ARSS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Monisha Handa, Mr. Rajul Shrivastav and Ms. Hange Nanya, Advocates. versus NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mritunjay Kr. Singh, Mr. Saikat Khatna, Mr. Harsh Garg, Mr. Akash Soni, Mr. Rajiv Vijay Mishra and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 27.03.2025 REVIEW PET.180/2025 (seeking review of judgment dated 10.03.2025 by petitioner 1. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 10.03.2025 whereby the petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act came to be dismissed. 2. The review petitioner had approached this Court for reference to arbitration of the disputes arising out of an EPC Agreement dated 09.12.2020. Clause 26 of the said agreement pertains to dispute resolution and provided for conciliation proceedings which were to precede any reference to arbitration. Upon the petitioner approaching the respondent, certain meetings were held between the parties, resulting in signing of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 15:38:45 Minutes of Meeting (“MoM”) on 13.02.2024 forwarded through letter dated 04.03.2024. 3. During arguments, respondent had taken a preliminary objection that the settlement agreement recorded in the MoM was in pursuance of conciliation proceedings envisioned under clause 26.2 of the agreement and in light of Section 74 of the A&C Act, were equivalent to an arbitral award which could only be challenged under Section 34 of the Act. 4. The petitioner had refuted the above stated objection by contending that the MoM was in nature of an amicable settlement governed by the latter part of Clause 26.2 of the agreement and thus, were not conciliation proceedings. 5. This Court, after hearing the parties and going through the record, came to the conclusion that Clause 26.2 of the agreement pertained to conciliation proceedings as a whole and a different category of „amicable settlement‟ could not be carved out of the same. It was also noted that the MoM, letter dated 04.03.2024 and review petitioner‟s own letter dated 08.07.2024 referred to the meetings as conciliation meetings. Thus, it was concluded that the settlement arrived at was in pursuant to conciliation proceedings and hence any challenge to same would have to be made like it was an arbitral award. 6. The review petitioner contends that the Minutes of Meeting dated 13.02.2024 do not amount to a settlement in pursuance of the conciliation proceedings. It is argued that the MoM failed to satisfy/meet the mandatory requirement of Section 73, 74 & 76 of the A&C Act as the neither the terms were formulated nor amount quantified and that there is nothing on record indicating termination of proceedings in terms of Section 76 of the Act. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 15:38:45 Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision in Mysore Cements Ltd. v. Svedala Barmac Ltd. 1 It is further submitted that the respondents in reply to the Section 11(6) petition no stand was taken that there was a settlement proceeding as per Section 74 of the Act. 7. The question that emerges for consideration is whether the view formed by this court, has ignored any binding precedent due to which there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the order of the kind that could be rectified in the review jurisdiction. 8. According to this Court, it has already formed a view on the issue and has held that MoM was akin to an award giving finality to the disputes between the parties for which reason petitioner‟s application under Section 11 was rejected. Although, the review petition is more in the nature of having a second bite at the cherry under the garb of review, which is not permissible, however, Court will examine if the view formed by it is contrary to any binding precedent laid down in Mysore Cements (Supra). 9. It is seen that Mysore Cements (Supra) pertained to the peculiar facts of the case and was rendered in the context of enforcement proceedings. It was specifically noted in the said case that the conciliation proceedings were not terminated but only adjourned. On the other hand, in the present case, it was recorded that not only the final conciliation conclusion was signed by the parties but also it was further provided that the petitioner would not approach any Court or Tribunal for any claim, compensation and/or damages after receipt of the settlement payment. The further submission that the respondent never pleaded that the settlement agreement would be construed as the one as under Section 73 of the A&C Act or that it had the 1 (2003) 10 SCC 375 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 15:38:45 same status as an Arbitral Award under Section 74 A&C Act, is also flout in view of the oral submissions addressed and written submissions placed on record. 10. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MARCH 27, 2025/rd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 15:38:45