Chhattisgarh High Court
ARBA/62/2019 of STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. Vs PRAXAIR INDIA PVT. LTD. on 20 September 2026
2026:CGHC:40980-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBA No. 62 of 2019 1 - Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Ispat Bhavan Lodhi Road New Delhi - 110003. ... Appellant versus 1 - Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. Mercury , 2B Block , 6th Floor Prestige Technology Park Outer Ring Road ,
CGHC010418952019
2026:CGHC:40980-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARBA No. 62 of 2019
1 - Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Ispat Bhavan Lodhi Road New Delhi - 110003.
... Appellant
versus
1 - Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. Mercury , 2B Block , 6th Floor Prestige Technology Park Outer Ring Road , Marathahalli Bengaluru - 560103.
... Respondent
For Appellant
:
Shri P. R. Patankar, Advocate.
For Respondent
:
Shri Anmol Sharma, Advocate.
DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu &
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Sushma Sawant
Judgment on Board
Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J
21/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard on I.A. No.03/2026, an application for disposal of the writ petition in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties vide agreement dated 19.08.2026 executed between the parties for settlement of dispute.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and written settlement deed dated 19.08.2026 has been executed between the parties, which is filed as Annexure AD/1. According to the terms of settlement, the appellant was required to pay a sum of Rs.37,01,72,778/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Crore One Lakh Seventy Two Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-Eight only) to respondent within the prescribed period. According to terms of the settlement deed, the appellant has already paid the aforesaid amount to the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has instructions from the respondent that the settlement has been arrived between the parties on 19.08.2026.
4. In view of above facts of the case, considering the pleadings made in the application and submission of counsel for the appellant that the condition imposed in the settlement agreement deed on the part of the appellant has already been complied with, this appeal is disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties (Annexure AD/1). Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant) Judge Judge Nikita