Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 952

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
Prashant Vasant Koregaonkar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Competent Authority Through Deputy Collector & Anr. - Respondents
Arbitration Appeal No. 70 of 2024 With Arbitration Appeal No. 60 of 2024 With Arbitration Appeal No. 65 of 2024 With Arbitration Appeal No. 63 of 2024 With Arbitration Appeal No. 59 of 2024 With Arbitration Appeal No. 61 of 2024 With Arbitration Appeal No. 62 of 2024 With Arbitration Appeal No. 64 of 2024
Decided On : 27-04-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat a/w Ms. Aditi S. Naikare a/w Aniesh S. Jadhav.
For the Respondent : Mr. A.R. Patil, Addl. G.P.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pradeep J. Thorat, Aditi S. Naikare, Aniesh S. Jadhav
For the Respondents: A. R. Patil

Section 37 court can rectify arbitral award's omission of 30% solatium in post-cut-off highway acquisitions as computational error when raised before tribunal, limited to arithmetic addition without merits review.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 37, 34, 33 - National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3G, 3J - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23(2) - Solatium entitlement in highway land acquisitions notified after cut-off date declaring law - Arbitral awards omitting 30% solatium despite issue raised before tribunal - Court holds omission as pure computational error correctable in Section 34/37 jurisdiction per declared law on modification limited to computational/clerical errors, without merits review or change to other award components. (Paras 3, 10-12, 14, 18, 21-22)

(B) Modification of arbitral awards - Restricted to computational, clerical, typographical errors even in statutory arbitration - Section 37 jurisdiction co-extensive with Section 34 - Applies where solatium computation is simple 30% addition on accepted compensation value post binding precedent. (Paras 11-14)

(C) Distinction from prior rulings - Correction permissible when solatium raised at arbitration and Section 34 stages, unlike cases where first introduced later - No reopening of concluded matters pre cut-off. (Paras 15-18, 23)

Facts of the case:
Bunch of appeals under Section 37 challenging arbitral awards and Section 34 orders denying 30% solatium on compensation for lands acquired under Highways Act via notifications post cut-off date declaring entitlement. Issue raised in references to tribunal; awards passed post clarifying judgment but omitted solatium; Section 34 court viewed as impermissible modification.

Findings of Court:
Arbitral awards modified to direct computation and payment of 30% solatium on awarded compensation amounts within twelve weeks, without disturbing other elements.

Issues: Core issue whether Section 37 court can direct correction of solatium computation as computational error; scope of modification in statutory arbitration for highway acquisitions.

Ratio Decidendi: Omission of statutorily mandated 30% solatium, raised before tribunal and aligning with post-notification declared law using specified cut-off, constitutes computational error amenable to rectification under Section 34/37 without re-evaluation, as mere arithmetic on undisputed value per binding precedents on limited modification powers. Result : Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. section 37 appeals challenge solatium omission in awards. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. solatium mandatory post-2008 golden iron judgment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. solatium raised in arbitration and section 34 proceedings. (Para 10 , 11)
4. gayatri balasamy authorizes computational error rectification. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. precedents distinguished; s37 corrects solatium denial. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. tarsem review affirms; omission is computational error. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. modify awards to add 30% solatium. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

1. This bunch of Appeals invoke Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) to impugn arbitral awards in connection with the acquisition effected for purposes of constructing National Highways under the National Highways Act, 1956 (“Highways Act”).

2. The facts of Arbitration Appeal No. 70 of 2024 would be instructive for dealing with the contentions across these appeals. Therefore, reference to dates is adopted on the basis of the dates obtaining in Arbitration Appeal No.70 of 2024 which is marked as the lead matter.

3. The core issue that arises for consideration in all these Appeals is whether this court, in the facts of this case, would have the ability to direct the correction of a computation of compensation statutorily payable to the Appellants in respect of solatium of 30% under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“1894 Act”).

4. Originally, Section 3G and Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 (“Highways Act”) excluded the provisions governing solatium as contained in the 1894 Act in computation of compensation under the Highways Act.

5. In the facts of this case, the notification for the land acquisition was Notification No. 2250 issued on September 3, 2009. By this date, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had struck down Section 3J and 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 as being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as these provisions denied the statutory benefit of solatium and interest envisaged in Section 23 and Section 28 of the 1894 Act, solely because the acquisition was for highways. This decision was pronounced on March 28, 2008 in Golden Iron and Steel, [Golden Iron and Steel Forging v. Union of India and Ors.- 2008 SCC OnLine P&H Court 498] nearly a year and half before the notification in question.

6. Thereafter, the Supreme Court, in the case of Sunita Mehra,[Sunita Mehra and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.- (2019) 17 SCC 672], rendered a decision on August 11, 2016, using March 28, 2008, as a cut-off date for consideration of solatium in relation to land acquisitions under the Highways Act. This date was chosen because that is the the date on which the Punjab and Haryana High Court declared the law in Golden Iron and Steel. It was stated that matters which had attained closure by that date could not be reopened, but all acquisitions after March 28, 2008 would be entitled to solatium.

7. Thereafter, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the law again in the case of Tarsem Singh,[Union of India and Anr. v. Tarsem Singh and Ors.– (2019) 9 SCC 304] by which time the 1894 Act had been replaced by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”), and ruled that solatium would be payable in respect of land acquisitions under the Highways Act, even when applying the 2013 Act.

8. The facts of this case fall squarely under the 1894 Act and what is noteworthy is that the acquisition itself was notified after the law was declared in Golden Iron and Steel and indeed well before the decision in Sunita Mehra.

9. On earlier occasions, I had asked the Appellants to demonstrate that they had indeed raised the issue of solatium right at the stage of their reference before the Arbitral Tribunal and to show that they did not raise it for the first time under Section 34 of the Act, which led to the impugned order.

10. Today, Le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Bom) 952

Section 37 court can rectify arbitral award's omission of 30% solatium in post-cut-off highway acquisitions as computational error when raised before tribunal, limited to arithmetic addition without merits review.

Cases Referred (2)