Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
T.C. Chinnasamy – Appellant
Versus
Project Director, National Highway Authority of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details about land acquisition and compensation determination. (Para 1 , 3 , 14) |
| 2. observations surrounding the application and its procedures. (Para 2 , 8 , 12) |
| 3. arguments regarding court fee exemption and entitlement. (Para 4 , 6 , 10) |
| 4. the court's reasoning about court fees in the context of appeals under specific statutes. (Para 16 , 24) |
| 5. final directives regarding the case proceedings and fee payment. (Para 20 , 26) |
ORDER :
P.B. Balaji, J.
The claimant in a land acquisition proceedings, is the revision petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the return of AOP.No.2017 in CFR.No.8429 of 2017, requiring the petitioner to pay Court fee under Schedule II Article 1(m) at the rate of 3% of the value, capped at a maximum of Rs.1 lakh.
2. I have heard Mr.S.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel for Ms.G.Sumitra, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.A.Anandan, learned Government Advocate, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
3. Mr.S.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the landowners had lost their valuable property in acquisition proceedings initiated under the National H
Exemption under Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act does not apply when challenging an award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; court fees are payable for such appeals.
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....
Narrow scope of judicial interference under Sections 34/37 Arbitration Act in NH Act awards; no re-appreciation of evidence or modification of compensation.
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.
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....
Narrow scope of judicial interference under Sections 34/37 Arbitration Act in NHAI land awards; cannot re-appraise evidence or enhance compensation without perversity.
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.
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
