Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 7590
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay S. Agrawal, Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ
Gopal Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Through Its Chief Engineer (Construction), South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur – Respondent
ARBA No.21 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Ankit Singhal, Shri Ashish Mittal
For the Respondents: Shri Tushar Dhar Diwan, Shri Atanu Ghosh
The court emphasized proper procedural fairness in arbitration, mandating remand to the arbitrator when sufficient opportunity for hearing was not provided.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37 - Railways Act, 1989 - Section 20(F) - Appeal challenging legality of Commercial Court's order setting aside an award and not remanding back to the Arbitrator - The appellant challenged the order on ground of lack of opportunity to the Respondent to present their case; referencing SC principles in pivotal cases. (Paras 2, 6, 8)
(B) Legal Framework - The court emphasized the distinction between remand and modification powers, asserting that remand under Section 34(4) is necessary when procedural fairness is compromised. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's land was acquired by the Respondent, and dissatisfaction arose on compensation awarded which prompted arbitration leading to an impugned order by the Commercial Court.
Findings of Court:
The appeal is granted, setting aside the Commercial Court's order and remitting the case for appropriate consideration by the Arbitrator per legal standards.
Issues: Whether proper hearing was given and whether the Commercial Court correctly exercised its authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the lower court misapplied legal principles regarding remand, necessitating reconsideration of the arbitrator's decision.
Result: Appeal allowed, matter remitted to Arbitrator.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge regarding the compensation awarded for land acquisition led to arbitration. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court emphasizes the need for fair hearing and procedural integrity. (Para 7) |
| 3. court orders remand for reconsideration of the arbitration decision. (Para 8) |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J
21/07/2025 SATISH 1) This appeal has been preferred by the Claimant/Gopal Agrawal under TUMANE Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1996”) read with Section 13 of the Commercial Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Court’s Act, 2015, questioning the legality and propriety of the order Date:
2025.07.21
18:13:03 dated 26.02.2024 passed in Arbitration M.J.C. No.193/2020, whereby, +0530 the Presiding Judge, Commercial Court (District Level), Bilaspur has allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1-Union of India under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 and, the award dated 26.02.2020 as was passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur [Appointed Authority to Act as an Arbitrator under Section 20 (F) of the Railways Act, 1989 ] (hereinafter referred to as “Arbitrator”) has been set-aside.
2) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Commercial Court has set-aside the award dated 26.02.2020 passed by the Arbitrator mainly on the ground that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to the Respondent No.1-Union of India, therefore, under such circumstances, the learned Commercial Court ought to have remanded the matter to the concerned Arbitrator with a direction to decide the claim of the claimant in accordance with law. In support, he placed his reliance upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of ‘ National Highways Authority of India vs. P. Nagaraju Alias Cheluvaiah and another ’ reported in (2022) 15 SCC 1 and also relying upon the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the matter of ‘ Gayatri Balasamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited ’ reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 986.
3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1-
Union of India has supported the order impugned as passed by the learned Commercial Court.
4) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.
5) From perusal of the record, it appears that the land bearing Khasra No.58/1 (थ) admeasuring 0.413 hectare situated at Village Bhalunara, Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) owned by the Claimant-Gopal Agrawal, was acquired by the Respondent No.1-Union of India, as per the provisions prescribed under the Railways Act, 1989 . The award to this effect was passed on 04.09.2015 by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kharsia of District Raigarh, in Land Acquisition Case No.12/A-82/2014-15, assessing the amount of compensation of the claimant’s land to the tune of Rs.8,99,951/- and, being aggrieved with the same, the claimant has questioned the said award before the Arbitrator as per the provisions prescribed under Section 20 -F of the Railways Act, 1989 , who in turn, vide its order dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure-A/7) has directed for determining the amount of compensation of the claimant’s alleged land as per the approved guidelines for the year 2015-16 issued by the Central Valuation Board, i.e. at the rate of Rs.32,21,000/- per hectare.
6) It appears further that being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, an application enumerated under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 was filed by the Respondent No.1-Union of India before the learned Presiding Judge, Commercial Court, (District Level) Bilaspur. The said proceeding was registered as Arbitration M.J.C. No.193/2020 and vide order dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure A-1), the said authority has allowed the said application and, the order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the learned Arbitrator was set-aside as due and proper opportunity of heari
