Allowed

Balbir Singh Bansal v. Union of India and 4 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2018WRIC/23850/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Bench reviewed an arbitral award under the National Highways Act, 1956. The court held that the Arbitrator was not justified in remitting the matter for fresh compensation determination after the Competent Authority had already done so. Relying on precedents, the award was quashed in that aspect and the Arbitrator was directed to determine the amount within three months.

What did the court decide?

The arbitral award remitting the matter was set aside; the Arbitrator directed to determine compensation himself within three months.

Balbir Singh Bansal Vs Union of India and 4 Others — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23850 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Balbir Singh Bansal Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shreya Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Neeraj Dube

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

List revised. None appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, Union of India.

¶6

This writ petition, inter alia, has been filed for the following reliefs;

¶7

i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to act in pursuance of the arbitral award dated 29.05.2017 passed by the Arbitrator/Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division, Agra and re-determine the compensation payable to the petitioner.

¶8

ii) Alternatively, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the arbitral award dated 29.05.2017 passed by the Arbitrator/Addtional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division, Agra to the extent that it remits the matter to the respondent no. 3 and direct the respondent no. 5 to re-determine the compensation payable to the petitioner, himself.

¶9

Heard Ms Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Neeraj Dube and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2, National Highway Authority of India, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf the Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 and perused the record.

¶10

The petitioner is seeking quashing of the award dated 29.5.2017 passed by the Arbitrator under Section 3-G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 to the extent that instead of determining the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner, the arbitrator has remanded the matter to the Competent Authority for a fresh determination in the light of the observations made in the award.

¶11

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the provisions of sub-sections (5)(7) of Section 3-G of

¶12

the Act, that it was obligatory on the part of the Arbitrator to have determined the compensation payable to the petitioner instead of remanding the matter to the Competent Authority.

¶13

Sri Neeraj Dube and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned of the Respondent No. 2, National Highway Authority of India have submitted that they have also filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the concerned Court for setting aside the impugned award. They have also not disputed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arbitral award passed by the arbitrator is without jurisdiction. They conceded the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

Dealing with the similar controversy, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8347 of 2018 (Rajiv Memorial Academy Welfare Society Vs. Union of India and 4 others) while allowing the writ petition on 5.3.2018 had observed as follows;

¶15

"It, therefore, clearly transpires that if the amount determined by the Competent Authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application filed by either of the parties, be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. Sub-section (7) of the Act provides guidelines to the Arbitrator for determining the amount. Thus, if an application is filed by either of the parties not satisfied with the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority, the Arbitrator has to determine the amount and the Arbitrator would not be justified in remitting the matter to the Competent Authority."

¶16

Thus, it is clear that the present controversy is fully covered by the decision of this Court in Rajiv Memorial Academy Welfare Society's case (supra). We are also fortified in our view by the decisions of this Court passed in Writ Petitions No. 10682 of 2018 (Sudeep Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India and 4 others) and 10687 of 2018 (M/S S.J.P. Global Vs. Union of India and 4 others) as well as judgment and order dated 7.4.2016 passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 5413 of 2016, Surendra Patil Vs. National Highways Authority of India and another (A photo copy of the judgment has been placed before this Court).

¶17

In view of the above, the arbitral award dated 29.05.2017 in so far as it remands the matter to the Competent Authority is set aside. The Arbitrator shall now, after hearing the parties, pass a

¶18

fresh award expeditiously, if possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶19

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶20

Order Date :- 24.7.2018 vinay

Balbir Singh Bansal v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh Bansal v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ghanendra Pal @ Dhanendra Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dharma Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sohan Singh Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Saleem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shambhu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others