IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 29966 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS)

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT HASSAN, NO. 44/1, A1, 1^ST MAIN KUVEMPU ROAD, INDIRA NAGARA SATHYAMANGALA LAYOUT HASSAN - 573 201.

2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY NH-75, HASSAN - BANTWALA SECTION NO. HIG-64, DTDC COURIER OFFICE BUILDING, 1^ST FLOOR, KHB COLONY CHENNAPATTANA OPPOSITE KSRTC Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA NEW BUS STAND, HASSAN - 573 201.

Location: HIGH COURT OF …PETITIONERS KARNATAKA (BY SRI. VASANTH S. KOPPAR SRI. HANUMANTHA REDDY G.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. K.K. LOKESH S/O KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDENT AT MAVANOOR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 213.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ARBITRATOR, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N.N. DAMODAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI. ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA FOR R2)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN I.A. NO. 2/2023 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 36/2023 DATED 25.04.2024 VIDE ANNX-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners are assailing the order of the Court below passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Section 36(2) and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the prayer to stay the award dated 17.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2 is rejected on the ground that the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act, 1996') is barred by limitation as it is filed beyond 120 days.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition, vehemently contends that the Court below ought to have first considered and decided the application filed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking condonation of delay, before adverting to the stay application filed by the petitioners under Section 36(2) of the Act, 1996. He would submit that the stay application has been rejected on the premise that the application filed under Section 34 is barred by limitation, as it was presented beyond the outer limit of 120 days.

3. Referring to Section 34(3) of the Act, 1996, learned counsel would contend that the Court below was required to determine the question of limitation with reference to the date on which the arbitral award was served on the petitioners. According to him, without undertaking any such examination and without first deciding the application seeking condonation of delay, the Court below proceeded to consider the stay application and rejected the same on the ground that Section 34 application itself was barred by limitation.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that the petitioners never insisted upon or pressed for hearing of the delay condonation application before the Court below. Having suffered an adverse order on I.A.No.2, the petitioners cannot now be permitted to approbate and reprobate by contending that the Court below ought not to have examined the question of limitation while considering the application filed under Section 36(2) seeking stay of the award.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has also supported the impugned order and submits that the writ petition does not warrant interference by this Court.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the material on record, the short question that arises for consideration is whether the Court below committed an error in rejecting the stay application filed in I.A.No.2 unde