IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
Rajinder Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
National Highway Authority of India and Another - Respondents
OMP(M) No.219 of 2023
Decided On : 10-01-2024
Delay Condonation - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 37 - NHAI Act, 1956, Section 3(A)(1), Section 3(D), Section 3G(5), Section 34 - The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appeal challenged a judgment passed by the District Judge in an arbitration petition. The dispute arose from the acquisition of land for the purpose of four laning of National Highway-21. The appellant challenged the award of the arbitrator, which was set aside by the District Judge due to non-compliance with the time limit for making the award as per Section 29(A) of the 1996 Act. The court remanded the matter back to the arbitrator for adjudication afresh and extended the time for pronouncing a fresh award by 30.06.2024.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute arising from the acquisition of land for the purpose of four laning of National Highway-21. The appellant challenged the award of the arbitrator, which was set aside by the District Judge due to non-compliance with the time limit for making the award as per Section 29(A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the award was not made within the specified time limit as per Section 29(A) of the 1996 Act, and the appellant could not be deprived of adequate compensation for the acquired land. The court remanded the matter back to the arbitrator for adjudication afresh and extended the time for pronouncing a fresh award by 30.06.2024.
Issues: The issues involved the challenge to the award of the arbitrator, compliance with the time limit for making the award as per Section 29(A) of the 1996 Act, and the right to adequate compensation for the acquired land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the award must be made within the specified time limit as per Section 29(A) of the 1996 Act. The appellant could not be deprived of adequate compensation for the acquired land, and the matter was remanded back to the arbitrator for adjudication afresh with an extended time for pronouncing a fresh award.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of by remanding the matter back to the arbitrator for adjudication afresh and by extending the time for pronouncing a fresh award by 30.06.2024. The court directed the parties to appear before the arbitrator on 22.01.2024.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
OMP(M) No.219 of 2023
By way of this application, a prayer has been made for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the averments made in the application, the same is allowed, as prayed for and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Appeal be registered. The application stands disposed of.
Arb. Appeal No.4 of 2024
3. With the consent of the parties, the parties, the appeal is being disposed of at this stage itself.
4. By way of this appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1996 Act’), the appellant has challenged judgment dated 04.12.2021, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Arbitration Petition No.39 of 2018, titled as National Highways Authority of India versus Rajinder Kumar, in terms whereof, the Arbitration Petition was allowed by the learned District in the following terms:-
5. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that Central Government issued a Notification on 21.04.2012 for the purpose of acquisition of the land comprised in Revenue Estate Chamukha, Hadbast No.41, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., for the purpose of four laning of National Highway-21. The Notification under Section 3(A)(1) of the NHAI Act, 1956 was published in the official gazette on 21.04.2012. The Notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 3(D) of the said Act was published in the official gazette on 01.04.2013. After complying with the other statutory authority, the Competent Authority assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.50,000/- per bigha for all kind irrespective of the classification and nature. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Competent Authority, the land owner made a Reference under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for enhancement of compensation. According to the landlord, the determination of the value of the acquired land @ Rs.50 lac per bigha was unfair, inadequate and unjust as the market value of the said land was in the range of Rs.2.5 Crore per bigha at the time of the issuance of the notification of acquisition. The Reference was answered by the learned Arbitrator vide award dated 28.11.2017, by ordering the enhancement of the compensation to Rs.68,16,513/- per bigha.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the National Highways Authority of India preferred Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which has been decided by the learned District Judge in terms of the impugned judgment.
7. While allowing the petition filed by the National Highways Authority of India and setting aside the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, learned District Judge observed that the award was passed by the learned Arbitrator on 28.11.2017. It held that in the case of the present appellant, namely, Sh. Rajinder Singh, the Reference was received by the learned Arbitrator on 05.01.2016. In terms of the provisions of Section 29(A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the award is to be made within a period of 12 months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the Reference and the parties may by consent in terms of Sub-section (3) thereof extend the period specified in Sub-section (1) for making award for a further period
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the award must be made within the specified time limit as per Section 29(A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the parties hav....
As right to property is a Constitutional right under Article 300A of Constitution of India, appellant cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance with law.
Arbitration awards must be issued within prescribed time limits. If the period exceeds without consent or extension from the Court, the award can be invalidated.
The court possesses the discretion under Section 29-A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend the time limit for concluding arbitral proceedings when the statutory period has lapse....
Point of Law : When a statute envisages an authority, be it an Arbitrator, to do a particular act in a particular manner and in a prescribed time schedule, then onus is upon the said authority/Arbitr....
The court possesses the discretion under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to extend the time limit for making an arbitral award, stressing the statutory obligation of the Arbitrat....
An arbitrator is mandatorily required to complete proceedings and pass an award within the statutory time limits prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; failure to do so warrants....
Adherence to statutory provisions and prescribed time schedules in arbitral proceedings is essential, and any delay must be justified.
Timely completion of arbitration proceedings is mandatory under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and failure to comply may result in termination of the Arbitrator's mandate.
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.