Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
National Highway Authority Of India – Appellant
Versus
Younis – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
Key Points: - The limitation period for filing an application under Section 34 commences from the date of disposal of an application filed under Section 33, provided it was formally invoked and entertained by the arbitral tribunal (!) (!) . - The benefit of deferring the limitation period under Section 34(3) is available irrespective of whether the Section 33 application is ultimately allowed or dismissed (!) (!) . - Formal applications under Section 33 must be filed and entertained by the arbitral tribunal to trigger the limitation deferral under Section 34(3) (!) (!) (!) . - The scope of Section 33 includes correction of clerical/typographical errors and interpretation of award, and the deferral applies regardless of the nature or outcome of the Section 33 application (!) (!) (!) . - Time spent on sham, frivolous, or mala fide Section 33 applications will not entitle deferral of limitation under Section 34(3) (!) . - The limitation period under Section 34(3) starts from the disposal date of the Section 33 request, not from the date of the original award (!) (!) . - Courts may impose punitive costs for abusing Section 33 to defeat limitation provisions (!) . - The disposal of Section 33 applications allows the parties to then pursue Section 34 remedies on their merits (!) . - Mere non-judicial correspondence seeking review does not qualify for limitation deferral; only formal arbitral tribunal proceedings under Section 33 count (!) . - The present appeal led to restoration of the trial court orders condoning delay in filing Section 34 applications (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of factual trajectory and procedural history leading to the appeal. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. rival contentions regarding the maintainability and effect of section 33 applications on limitation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. detailed interpretation of section 34(3) read with section 33 regarding the commencement of limitation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. application of law to facts resulting in the reversal of the high court's judgment. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
J U D G M E N T
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 22.01.2024, passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, (“High Court”) by which the writ petition1Writ Petition No. 105176 of 2023 (GM-RES). preferred by the Respondents was allowed. By the said order, the High Court, set aside the order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bellary, whereby delay in filing the applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) was condoned.
3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 15.12.2009, the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways issued a preliminary notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, (‘1956 Act’) for acquisition of land in Bellary District. The said notification included the land belonging to Respondent No.1 as well. By a declaration dated 14.12.2010 issued under Section 3D(2), the land vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The competent authority by an Award dated 05.12.2011, determined the compensation under Section 3G(1) of the 1956 Act.
4. The Appellant invoked the remedy of Arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the 1956 Act. The Deputy Commissioner-Cum-Arbitrator, Bellary (Arbitrator) vide Award dated 16.02.2013, redetermined the market value of agricultural land at the rate of Rs.362/- per sq. metre, whereas the market value of the non-agricultural land was assessed at Rs.741/- per sq. metre. The High Court by an order dated 16.03.2019 set aside the Arbitral Award dated 16.02.2013 and remitted the matter to the Arbitrator for de novo consideration.
5. Pursuant to the remand, the Arbitrator conducted fresh proceedings and passed an Award on 03.2.2022 by granting the benefit of Section 23(1-A), 23(2), 28 and Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act). On 08.03.2022, the Appellant filed application under Section 33(1)(a) of the Act before Arbitrator seeking correction of Arbitral Award, inter alia on the ground that grant of additional market value under Section 23 and interest under Section 34 of the 1894 Act is not legally sustainable. On 10.03.2022, the Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 33(4) of the Act seeking an additional award of 50% over and above the market value on the ground that such a claim had been raised during the Arbitral Proceeding, but the same was omitted in the final Award. The Arbitrator by a common order dated 04.07.2022, dismissed the applications filed under Section 33 of the Act by the Appellant as well as Respondent No.1. The certified copy of the said order was received by the Appellant on 15.09.2022.
6. On 29.10.2022, the Appellant filed applications under Section 34 of the Act along with applications seeking condonation of delay2Arbitration Application Nos. 3/2022 and 4/2022.. The Respondent No. 1 raised an objection contending that the applications under Section 34 of the Act were filed with delay which was beyond the condonable period of delay of 120 days, as provided, in proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bellary by an order dated 05.08.2023 condoned the delay in filing the applications under Section 34 of the Act and allowed the same. The Respondent No.1 challenged the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2023 in a Writ Petition3W.P. No. 105176/2023..
7. The High Court by a judgment and order dated 22.01.2024, held that Section 33(1) (a) of the Ac
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
