Parties’ compromise in an arbitration appeal was accepted and embodied in a consent decree.

The appellants challenged an order dated 12 January 2026 made in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, concerning an arbitral award dated 6 August 2024.

During the appeal, the parties reached a settlement and presented signed consent terms.

They appeared before the Court and confirmed that they had entered into the terms voluntarily, without force, coercion, or undue influence.

The settlement addressed payment of Rs. 75,00,000 in full and final settlement of the respondents’ award claim, continuation of the appellants’ possession under the registered lease deeds, and withdrawal of Rs. 35,00,000 deposited in the Commercial Court.

1. Whether the Court should accept the parties’ compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dispose of the appeal in its terms.

2. Whether the appellants were entitled to a refund of court fee following disposal of the appeal by consent.

Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits a court to record a lawful compromise in writing and signed by the parties and to pass a decree in accordance with it.

The appeal was brought under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the underlying challenge arose under Section 34 of the latter Act.

The Court also noted that court-fee refund would be governed by the relevant rules.

The Court did not determine the merits of the challenge to the arbitral award or the Section 34 order.

Instead, it verified that the parties were present, identified by counsel, and had signed the consent terms voluntarily.

Finding the compromise acceptable under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, the Court gave effect to the parties’ settlement, including its payment, possession, and lease-related terms.

It further held that the appellants were entitled to a refund of court fee as provided by the relevant rules.