IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, Niral R. Mehta, JJ.
Project Director, National Highways Authority of India Shri Krishna Pal Sinh Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
Jogendar Parsottam Shetiya and others – Respondents
R/First Appeal No. 1605 of 2021 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2021
Decided On : 28-10-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Limitation Act – Section 17 Civil Procedure Code,1908 – Section 115 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37(3),34 and 15 -Land – Compensation - This appeal under Section 37(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is at instance of National Highways Authority of India and is directed against judgment and order passed by Additional District Judge in Civil Miscellaneous Application filed by respondent (original applicant) under Section 34 of Act, 1996, whereby Court below partly allowed application enhancing compensation in favor of original applicant - Whether court had power under Section 34 to modify or vary an award.
Finding of the Court :
Phrase “but not thereafter” provided under Section 34(3) of Act makes it evident that statutory period of limitation for filing an application for setting aside is three months, which is extendable by thirty days, if sufficient cause is made out - No further period of time can be granted for filing of an application under Section 34 - Second, extending Section 17 of the Limitation Act to Section 34 would do violence to scheme of Arbitration Act - Section 36 enables a party to apply for enforcement of award when period for challenging an award under Section 34 has expired - However, if Section 17 were to be extended to Section 34, determination of “time for making an application to set aside arbitral award” in Section 36 will become uncertain and create confusion in the enforcement of award - This runs counter to scheme and object of Arbitration Act.
Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
Niral R. Mehta, J.
1. This appeal under Section 37(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act, 1996”) is at the instance of the National Highways Authority of India (original defendant No.2) and is directed against the judgment and order passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Kachchh – Bhuj dated 22nd February 2021 in the Civil Miscellaneous Application No.103 of 2018 filed by the respondent No.1 herein (original applicant) under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, whereby the Court below partly allowed the application enhancing the compensation in favour of the original applicant.
2. We need not delve much into the facts giving rise to this litigation as the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, to which one of us (J. B. Pardiwala, J.) was a party, would make the picture clear. We quote the order as under:
2. This appeal under Section 37 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act, 1996”) is at the instance of the National Highway Authority of India and is directed against the judgment and order passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj dated 22.02.2021 in the Civil Miscellaneous Application No.103 of 2018 filed by the claimant under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. The impugned final order (operative order) reads as under:-
“The application is partially allowed.
The Award & Order dated 12/07/2011 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Anjar and Award & Order dated 10/07/2018 passed in NH Award/Lavad Case No.89/2013, by the Arbitrator (Collector, Kachchh), are hereby quashed and set aside.
The petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the acquired land admeasuring 2375 Sqaure Meters of Survey No.1183/2 of Mouje & Taluka : Bhachau, District: Kachchh, at the rate of Rs.1,100/- (Rupees One thousand one hundred only) per Square Meters.
The amount already paid at the rate of Rs.150/- per Square Meters (i.e. total Rs.3,56,250/-) to the petitioner, shall be deducted from the above awarded amount.
The Respondent No.1 & 2 are ordered & directed to pay the amount of compensation as ordered above, within the period of one month, from the date of this Order. If the Respondent No.1 & 2 fails to pay within the time granted, then the said amount shall be paid with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this Order till its actual revitalization to the Petitioner.
Yadi and alongwith copy of this Order be sent to Respondents for its immediate compliance.
The Record and Proceedings of NH Award/Lavad Case No.89/2013, be sent to the Arbitrator (Collector, Kachchh).
The parties shall bear their own costs.
3. The principal argument of Mr. Nanavaty, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the court below in exercise of power under section 34 of the Act, 1996 could not have modified the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
4. The plain reading of the impugned final order would indicate that the application filed by the original claimant under section 34 of the Act,1966 came to be partly allowed. The award passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Anjar and the award passed by the Arbitrator (Collector, Kachchh) were ordered to be quashed and set aside. The Court below passed an order declaring that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in question at the rate of 1,100 (Rs. One thousand one hundred only) per square meter.
5. The principal argument as canvassed on behalf of the appellant is based on a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of The Project Director, National Highways No.45 E and 220 national Highways Authority of India V/s. M. Hakeem & Anr. reported in 2021 SCC onl
NTPC Ltd vs. Marathon Electric Motors India Ltd
P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar
State of Himachal Pradesh v Himachal Techno Engineers
State of Maharashtra v. Ark Builders
Union of India v. Popular Construction
Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors
Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel v. Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel (2018) 15 SCC 178
Point of Law : Once the time-limit or extended time-limit for challenging the arbitral award expires, the period for enforcing the award under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act commences.
The Court can partially set aside an arbitral Award and has limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court cannot modify an Award but can set ....
The arbitrator's authority under the National Highways Act is limited to determining compensation, and parties waive their right to object to awards if they do not raise timely challenges.
The nature and status of the land on the date of notification must be considered in determining compensation for land acquired under the NHAI Act, 1956, and settled legal principles must be applied i....
The court established that an arbitral award can be set aside if it contravenes the principles of natural justice and public policy, particularly when crucial evidence is introduced after the conclus....
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....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.