Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.JAYACHANDRAN
Raghavan V.T – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport & Highways, Government Of India, Central Delhi P.O., New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property acquisition details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. argument for disbursement of compensation. (Para 3) |
| 3. counterargument outlining remand context. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's analysis on remand powers. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. clarification on remand limitations. (Para 8) |
| 6. implementation timelines and conditions. (Para 9) |
| 7. final order regarding compensation. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking disbursement of the compensation pursuant to acquisition of the petitioner's property by the 6th respondent/National Highways Authority of India (N.H.A.I). This case has a chequered history, which is narrated in brief herebelow:
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter has attained finality by Ext.P7 judgment of this Court, wherefore, there cannot be any legal impediment for disbursement of the Award amount. Inasmuch as the Award passed by the Arbitrator has been set aside, the original Award passed by the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (CALA) revives and disbursement has to be made in accord therewith, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. In answer to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner would sub
The court ruled that an arbitrator's award may be set aside for procedural deficiencies, but this does not imply automatic remand for further arbitration.
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 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 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.
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 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 ....
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
