Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J
Prashant Vasant Koregaonkar – Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority Through Deputy Collector – Respondent
| 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) |
Oral Judgement:
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 whethe
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
