Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MUKULIKA SHRIKANT JAWALKAR
Project Director National Highways Authority of India Yavatmal – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner Nagpur And Arbitrator Under N.H. Act Nagpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.
3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge, Yavatmal dated 11.10.2023 in M.J.C. no. 14/2016 by which the learned District Judge, has allowed the application filed by the respondent No.3 & 4 under section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred as ‘A & C Act’), whereby it has remitted the matter to Arbitrator i.e. respondent no.1 to resume arbitration and determine the claim filed by the respondent no. 3 & 4 afresh and especially consider the claim of the said respondents with respect to solatium within a period of three months.
4. Petitioner No.1 is the Project Director of National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter for sake of brevity referred as NHAI) which conducts its activities under the provisions and law contemplated under the National Highway Act 1956 (hereinafter referred as ‘NH Act’). The Applicant No.2 i.e. Government of India vide its Gazette Notification published the details of land in villages which were proposed to be acquired for the building (Widening), maintenance, management and operation on the stretch of
The court upheld the discretion under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to remit matters to the Arbitrator for addressing gaps in the award, particularly regarding solatium.
The court affirmed the discretion under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to remit matters to the Arbitrator for reconsideration of solatium, following the Supreme Court's ruling ....
The court upheld the applicability of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 to compensation determinations under the National Highways Act, affirming the Arbitrator's decision to enhance compensation based on resid....
Acquisition of Land - Arbitrator granted enhancement of compensation - Arbitrator while rendering Award correctly took into consideration entire material on record, while determining rate at which co....
Important points:After making an elaborate survey of the rule position that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1A) and (2) and ....
The court ruled that the Section 34 Court lacks jurisdiction to modify an arbitral award to grant a statutory entitlement, such as solatium, when it was not part of the original frame of reference.
![A. Ismail Sait VS Competent Authority Land Acquisition and Special District Revenue Officer National Highways [NH-45] Villupuram District - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2156](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_2.png)
The court affirmed the necessity of a judicial approach in determining compensation for land acquisition, allowing for modification of arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Concilia....
The court clarified that under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the scope of review is limited to setting aside awards for patent illegality or public policy violations, not for modification.
Court held that an arbitrator cannot remand matters back to competent authority after initial determination, affirming the arbitrary powers under Section 3G(5) of NHAI Act and the doctrine of acquies....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
