Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mathur, AOR Mr. Chiranjeev Johri, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Jain, Adv. SLP 2503/2022 Mr. Santosh Kumar - I, AOR Mr. Daksh Arora, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. Ms. Sregurupriya, Adv. Mr. Prasad Hegde, Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR Ms. Malvika Kala, Adv. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Anand Singh, Adv. Ms. Lalitha Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Manoj Joshi, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Yadav, Adv. Ms. Elaisha Asher, Adv. Ms. Akshata Singh, Adv. Mr. Vardhman Kaushik , AOR Mr. B.P. Ravi, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Joshi, Adv. Mr. Prafful Saini, Adv. Mr. Nishant Gautam, Adv. Mr. B. Purushottama Reddy, Adv.

The arbitral award sought to be executed is vitiated by patent illegality and non-speaking defects, rendering it inexecutable and liable to be set aside with remand under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, warranting an immediate stay on execution proceedings under Section 36 thereof read with Order 21 CPC. The arbitrator has committed material irregularity by inconsistently cherry-picking base market values from one notification (e.g., 2014 guidelines) while applying uplift factors or special instructions from a later unrelated notification (e.g., 2018 guidelines for 50% enhancement on industrial land), without any reasoned justification or comparability analysis between the acquired land and selectively adopted nearby layouts like 'City Greens' or 'Zunadu', thereby ignoring survey-specific values within the same applicable notification (e.g., Rs.8,000/sq.mtr for converted land vs. higher values for unrelated layouts) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Further, the award fails to furnish intelligible and adequate reasons as mandated under Sections 31(3) and 28(3), with no discussion on discarding same-survey-number values, absence of evidence establishing proximity or market parity with post-notification guidelines (e.g., 28.03.2016 notification applied to 01.02.2016 acquisition), and violation of natural justice by relying on unpleaded documents without affording opportunity to rebut under Sections 18, 24(3) and 26 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Market value must be determined as on the Section 3A notification date under the National Highways Act, with post-notification escalations requiring explicit justification, which is wholly absent here, making the award ex facie perverse and non-est (!) (!) (!) (!) . Execution court must exercise inherent powers to halt proceedings to prevent unjust enrichment, remit the matter for fresh reasoned adjudication by the arbitrator, and adjust any excess payments post-remand, as courts cannot modify but only set aside such defective awards (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .