Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Sumanbai Shantaram Bachchav – Appellant
Versus
Arbitrator and Additional Commissioner National Highway Authority of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the land acquisition cases. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. challenge to the arbitral award and claim for solatium. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. legal framework governing compensation calculations. (Para 8 , 10 , 12 , 18) |
| 4. supreme court ruling principles on compensation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 19) |
| 5. jurisdictional limitations on modifying arbitral awards. (Para 24 , 27 , 29) |
| 6. entitlement to solatium but limitations of court jurisdiction. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. court's final findings and observations on the case. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
Context and Factual Background:
1. This is a bunch of thirty Petitions filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) that challenge a judgement dated May 4, 2023 (“Impugned Judgement”) passed by the Learned District Court, Nashik. This judgement would dispose of all these Petitions, each of which relates to land acquisition for the same National Highway project.
2. The land parcels acquired in these cases are situated in Mouje Wake and Saundane, Taluka Malegaon, District Nashik. They were notified for compulsory acquisition for purposes of four-laning the
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.
Section 37 court can rectify arbitral award's omission of 30% solatium in post-cut-off highway acquisitions as computational error when raised before tribunal, limited to arithmetic addition without ....
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 ....
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....
Landowners are entitled to solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, despite pending arbitration cases.
![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 principle of patent illegality in arbitral awards requires that all critical issues raised by the parties must be addressed, and failure to do so can lead to the award being set aside. Additional....
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
