Back
RAJIV ROY
Santosh Kumar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Rajiv Roy, J.—Heard Mr. Kumar Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AC to AAG-4.
2. The present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:—
(i) for issuance of an order, direction or a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 02.08.2023-passed in Land Acquisition Appeal Case No.30/2023-24 communicated to the petitioners through Memo No.998 dated 08.08.2023 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the writ petitioners under Section 3-G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for redetermination of the award has been rejected by the Respondent No.7 namely, the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division-cum- Learned Arbitrator only on the ground of delay without deciding the claim of the petitioners on merit;
(ii) for issuance of an order, direction or a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to determine the award in accordance with Section 3-G (7) of the National Highways Act, 1956 read with Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on the basis of market value specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for the registration of the sale deed in the area where
The court emphasized a liberal approach to condoning delays in land acquisition cases, allowing petitions despite alternative remedies being available.
Judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings is limited; parties must await the final award unless a right of appeal exists, and a liberal approach is adopted for condoning delays in land acquisitio....
The High Court cannot entertain writ petitions challenging arbitral awards after the statutory limitation period has expired, reinforcing the need for adherence to legislative intent in arbitration m....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the authority's power to remit back the matter under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and the restrictions on ....
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 High Court held that challenges to arbitral awards under the National Highways Act must be pursued through statutory remedies rather than under Article 226, ensuring procedural fairness in proper....
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 ....
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
