SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 1648

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECT), NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PRAKASH CHAND PRADHAN & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5250 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 20049 OF 2017 NO. 5251 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 595 of 2018)
Decided On : 16-05-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Anupam Lal Das, Kabir Shankar Bose, Shashank Manish, Sameer Kumar, Vikramjit Banerji, Ashok K. Srivastava, Sunita Sharma, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Anshul Gupta, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Sunil Kumar Jain, A.K. Shah, Punya Garg, Abhishek Jain, Anupam Lal Das, Kabir Shankar Bose, Shashank Manish, Sameer Kumar, Advocates

Specific provisions in special laws override general provisions in the absence of explicit applicability.

Headnote:

Arbitration - National Highways Act - Appointment of Arbitrator under Section 3-G

Fact of the Case:

The court considered the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956, which provides for determination of compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 3-G is solely in the hands of the Central Government, and Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not apply in this context.

Issues: The issue was whether Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be invoked for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the specific provision in the National Highways Act, which overrides the general provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and cited a similar provision in the Electricity Act, 2003 to support its decision.

Final Decision: The impugned judgment was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides for determination of the amount that is payable by way of compensation. We are concerned in these appeals with sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 3-G which read as under:

"(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.

(6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act."

3. A cursory reading of sub-section (5) shows us that appointment of the arbitrator under the said sub-section is only in the hands of the Central Government. Sub-section (6) begins with the important expression "subject to the provisions of this Act", the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are, therefore, of the view that a Section 11 application under the 1996 Act cannot be made as the Central Government alone is to determine who is to be an arbitrator under Section 3-G (5) of the National Highways Act. If a demand is made for the appointment of an arbitrator, and the Central Government does not appoint an arbitrator within a reasonable time, the remedy that is to be availed of is a writ petition or a suit for the said purpose, and not Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

5. A similar provision contained in Section 86 (1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 specifically gives the State Commission power to refer any dispute for arbitration. In this view of the matter, this Court in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Essar Power Ltd., (2008) 4 SCC 755, held as under:

"28. Section 86(1)(f) is a special provision and hence will override the general provision in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for arbitration of disputes between the licensee and generating companies. It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion, Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has no application to the question who can adjudicate/arbitrate disputes between licensees and generating companies, and only Section 86(1)(f) shall apply in such a situation."

6. We respectfully agree with the ratio of the said judgment. Likewise, Section 3-G of the National Highways Act is a special provision which will be given effect insofar as the appointment of an arbitrator is concerned.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has, however, argued that an arbitrator has now been appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and, that, therefore, no prejudice will be caused if he is allowed to continue. This arguments ignores the fact that Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not apply and that, under Section 3-G, the Central Government alone can appoint an arbitrator.

8. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appeals are allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top