JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, challenging the order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri in A.O.P.No.17 of 2013 under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, wherein the said application was dismissed.

2. An arbitral award dated 17.08.2012 came to be passed by the first respondent in favour of the first Appellant under the National Highways Act, under which, the first respondent confirmed the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Dhramapuri dated 10.07.2007. The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri, the competent authority under the National Highways Act determined the compensation payable for the Appellant's lands which were acquired under the National Highways Act by its proceedings dated 10.07.2007. Under the said proceedings, the land acquisition officer has determined the compensation at Rs.1,97,600/- per hectare.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the first Appellant initiated arbitration as per the provisions of the National Highways Act and the first respondent, District Collector by order dated 17.08.2012 confirmed the order of the District Revenue Officer dated 10.07.2007 and did not grant any enhancement of compensation as sought for by the first Appellant.

4. Aggrieved by the arbitral award passed by the first respondent, District Collector, the first Appellant filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri in A.O.P.No.17 of 2013. The learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri dismissed the application filed by the first Appellant by its order dated 18.04.2016. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

5. Heard Mr.R.Prabudoss, learned counsel for the Appellants and Dr.S.Suriya, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

6. In the application filed by the first Appellant in A.O.P.No.17 of

2013 before the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the first Appellant has sought for enhancement of compensation from the one determined by the first respondent, District Collector under the National Highways Act.

7. It is now well settled as per the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Project Director, National Highways vs. M.Hakeem and another reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 473 that an arbitral award cannot be modified by a court exercising power under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are extracted hereunder:

"39. As has been pointed out by us hereinabove, McDermott (supra) has been followed by this Court in Kinnari Mullick (supra). Also, in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v.Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC Online SC 157, a recent judgment of this Court also followed McDermott (supra) stating that there is no power to modify an arbitral award under Section 34 as follows:—

(f) In law, where the Court sets aside the award passed by the majority members of the tribunal, the underlying disputes would require to be decided afresh in an appropriate proceeding.

Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the Court may either dismiss the objections filed, and uphold the award, or set aside the award if the grounds contained in sub-sections (2) and (2A) are made out. There is no power to modify an arbitral award.

40. It can therefore be said that this question has now been settled finally by at least 3 decisions of this Court. Even otherwise, to state that the judicial trend appears to favour an interpretation that would read into Section 34 a power to modify, revise or vary the award would be to ignore the previous law contained in the 1940 Act; as also to ignore the fact that the 1996 Act was enacted based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985 which, as has been pointed out