When a court sets aside an arbitral award for procedural defects like non-joinder of a party, it should facilitate a fresh consideration by the statutory arbitrator rather than dismissing the claim entirely, to ensure the party's statutory right to fair compensation is not denied by technicalities.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN,J.)

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, dated 11.01.2021 passed in Arb.O.P.No.100 of 2019.

2.The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has acquired the land of the appellant herein for the purpose of extending the National Highways-68, for which the appellant has been awarded a compensation of Rs.2,94,394/- by the Competent Authority/2^nd respondent. Since the appellant felt that the compensation awarded was not fair, she had filed a claim petition before the Arbitrator-cum-District Collector/3^rd respondent seeking for enhancement of compensation, which came to be ordered in favour of the appellant with a direction to the 2^nd respondent herein to collect the enhanced compensation from the Claims Department and settle the same to the appellant. Challenging the said Award, the 1^st respondent herein had filed Arb.O.P.No.100 of 2019 before the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram. The said petition was allowed by holding that the 1^st respondent herein was not impleaded and heard while the Arbitrator passed the Award. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal is filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that though the learned Principal District Judge had held that the 1^st respondent was not impleaded as a party, he ought to have remitted the matter back to the Arbitrator for fresh consideration, after giving an opportunity to the appellant. She submitted that the learned Judge ought to have adjourned the proceedings sine die allowing the appellant to implead the 1^st respondent and non-joinder of a party cannot be attributed against the appellant. Thus, the impugned order, setting aside the Award of the Arbitrator without giving any relief to the appellant, is illegal and against the public policy. Therefore, the order of the learned Principal District Judge is liable to be set aside.

4.The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would submit that by invoking Section 34 of the Act, the learned Principal District Judge has no other option, except to set aside the Award, since there is no scope to remit the matter back to the Arbitrator. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that there is no merits in the present appeal and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 5.Admittedly, the appellant herein had received a compensation for the land acquired by the NHAI for the purpose of extension of National Highways. When the appellant sought for enhanced compensation by way of filing a claim petition, the Arbitrator had awarded the same, however, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the 1^st respondent herein. Thereafter, when the said Award was challenged in an Arbitration Original Petition, the learned Principal District Judge had held that the 1^st respondent was neither impleaded as a party nor heard while passing the Award. By holding so, he had set aside the Award of the Arbitrator by placing reliance on the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6.The Principal District Judge had correctly noted that the NHAI was not impleaded or heard during the original arbitration. However, setting aside the award on this procedural ground, without further action, was insufficient. This Court is of the view that a fair hearing must be provided to both the parties to present its case while ensuring that the landowner's claim is properly adjudicated. This Court feels that if the impugned order stood, the land owner would be forced to accept the original, low compens