Back
SARAL SRIVASTAVA
Vijay Raj Singh – Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate/Arbitrator – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C. No.2, Muzaffar Nagar rejecting the application no.58Ga under Section 3(I)(b) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1956’) read with Order 11 Rule 12 of C.P.C. and application 63Ka under Section 23(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1996’) in Arbitration Case No.779 of 2011.
3. The facts in brief are that land of the petitioners being Khasra No.82 admeasuring 250 square meters, village Husainpur, Bopada, Muzaffar Nagar was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as 'NHAI') for expansion of National Highway No.58 by issuing a notification dated 28.11.2005 and 24.11.2006 under Section 3A of the Act, 1956. The competent authority notified under the Act, 1956 prepared a draft award determining the rate of compensation at Rs.770/-per square meter to be paid to the land owners whos
The court's jurisdiction in considering the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is limited and restricted, and it does not have the power to allow amendments not pleaded before the Arbitrat....
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....
Setting aside of Arbitral award – Section 34 application will not ordinarily require anything beyond record that was before arbitration and cross-examination of persons swearing in to affidavits shou....
The main legal point established is that objections challenging an award under the National Highways Act, 1956 are maintainable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and inc....
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
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 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
