SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 4250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO, MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH, JJ
Krishnamma W/o Late. Poovappa – Appellant
Versus
Arbitrator Cum Deputy Commissioner – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1348 OF 2020 (AA)



Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. VISHWAJITH RAI M, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)
For the Respondent:SRI. VASANT S KOPPAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SREENATH V K, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA

The limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is mandatory and cannot be extended beyond 30 days, leading to the dismissal of the suit as time-barred.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3(G)(6) - Dismissal of suit as barred by limitation - Appellant claimed compensation for land acquired for highway widening - Award communicated on 18.04.2017, suit filed on 21.09.2017, 65 days late - Trial Court found no sufficient cause for delay - Court emphasized that the limitation period under Section 34(3) is mandatory and cannot be extended beyond 30 days. (Paras 4, 18)

(B) Limitation - The court held that the appellant failed to prove timely receipt of the award, thus the suit was rightly dismissed as time-barred. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The appellant owned land acquired for highway widening and contested the compensation awarded by the Arbitrator, claiming the award was not communicated to her in time.

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court found that the award was dispatched to the appellant's address on 18.04.2017, and the suit was filed beyond the permissible limitation period.

Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant received the award in time and if the delay in filing the suit could be condoned.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act is strict and cannot be extended beyond the stipulated time frame, affirming the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 30.08.2019 passed in Arbitration Suit No.56/2018 whereby the learned I Addl. District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore (for brevity, ‘Trial Court’) has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant herein under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, ‘A&C Act’ ) read with Section 3(G) (6) of National Highways Act, 1956 (for brevity, ‘NH Act’) as barred by limitation.

2. The facts to be noted for the purpose of this judgment are that the appellant herein was the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing Sy.No.68/8 measuring 0.22.00 acres of land situated at Permannur Village by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 01.11.1962 registered as document No.455/1962 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mangalore. It is the case of the appellant that after purchasing the said property, she made vast improvements by spending huge amount of money. Out of 22 cents of land, 15 cents of land has been acquired for the purpose of widening of the National Highway. The land was acquired for widening National Highway by fixing Rs.1,50,000/- per cent as the compensation payable for all lands compulsorily acquired in Permannnuru Village.

3. The appellant being aggrieved by the compensation granted by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a claim petition before the learned Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of NH Act, 1996. The Arbitrator considering the averments made in the claim petition, passed the award dated 11.04.2017 enhancing the compensation amount to Rs. 1,75,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the learned Arbitrator, the appellant herein approached the Trial Court under Section 34 of the A and C Act of 1996. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the impugned award passed by the learned Arbitrator is opposed to law and is unsustainable.

4. On the other hand, the NHA has justified the award passed by the learned Arbitrator. The said petition was filed along with an application under Section 34 (3) of A & C Act seeking condonation of delay of 65 days in filing the suit. The case of the plaintiff in support of the application for the delay was that the award dated 11.04.2017 was not communicated to her. It is stated, she came to know about the impugned award passed by the learned Arbitrator in the last week of August, 2017. Immediately thereafter, she obtained the certified copy of the same and filed the suit on 21.09.2017. It is a conceded case of the plaintiff that the suit in terms of prescribed limitation otherwise had expired on 11.08.2017. It is conceded that the suit under Section 34 of the Act was filed on 21.09.2017 with a delay of 65 days. The Trial Court while rejecting the plea of condonation of delay of 65 days has in paragraphs 16 to 18 stated as under.

“16. The plaintiff contended that the respondent No.1 neither passed the award in her presence nor after giving notice. Even though the impugned award has been passed on 11.4.2017, it was not communicated for her and she came to know about the impugned order in the last week of August 2017. Immediately she obtained the certified copy of the orders and proceeded to file the suit. Due to the said fact she was not able to file the suit well in time. Further there is no delay in filing the suit. If there is any delay it is neither intentional nor deliberate. But it is due to the bonafide reason.

17. In view of the specific case of the plaintiff regarding the non-service of the copy of the impugned award, notice was issued to the defendant No.1 to appear before the court and to say about the service of copy of the award to the appellant. On receiving the said notice, Sri.Jagadish FDA, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, D.K. Mangalore (Arbitration Section) appeared before the court and sought for time to verify and report submitting that the orders will be dispatched over post. At his request time was granted till 17.6.20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top