Back
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ARUN R.PEDNEKER
National Highways Authority Of India PIU Jalgaon Through Its Project Director Shivaji V Pawar - – Appellant
Versus
Bhaskar Ninu Zambare – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. highway land acquisition proceedings and arbitral enhancement challenge (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. challenges to post-notification sales, comparisons, interest, evidence (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. post-notification sales valid if proximate; consistent awards upheld (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. proximate genuine post-notification sales determine market value (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. severance compensation despite unframed issue if facts support (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. limited s34/s37 interference absent patent illegality or perversity (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. no interference with confirmed arbitral awards (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
1. By the present Arbitration Appeals, the appellant – National Highway Authority of India has challenged the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the said Act came to be rejected and the arbitral award passed by the learned Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 came to be confirmed.
2. Since all the Arb
Post-notification sale deeds admissible for compensation if proximate, genuine, uninflated; severance awards upheld on uncontroverted evidence; minimal judicial interference in arbitral awards absent....
Limited judicial interference with arbitral land compensation awards under Sec.34/37; enhancement for commercial use upheld; separate easementary compensation allowed in partial acquisition affecting....
Section 29A of Arbitration Act inapplicable to arbitrations under Section 3G(5) of National Highways Act as special code; Central Government exclusive appointment overrides court extension/substituti....
Narrow scope of judicial interference under Sections 34/37 Arbitration Act in NHAI land awards; no re-appreciation of evidence or modification.
Narrow scope under Sections 34/37 of Arbitration Act limits interference with NHAI arbitral awards to patent illegality, not re-appreciating evidence or enhancing compensation.
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....
Judicial intervention in arbitral awards is restricted, requiring adherence to statutory valuation methods ensuring fair compensation for land acquisition, as per applicable laws.
Narrow scope of judicial interference under Sections 34/37 Arbitration Act in NHAI land awards; cannot re-appraise evidence or enhance compensation without perversity.
Courts under Sections 34/37 cannot re-appreciate evidence in NHAI arbitration awards; interference limited to perversity or public policy.
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
