National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director vs Noorbanu Mahmad Usaman Kureshi and others

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:16884

¶2

IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

3 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2026

¶4

National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director VERSUS

¶5

Mahadeo Pandurang Dhere And Others

¶6

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh Dinkarrao Advocate for Respondent No.1: Mr. Atul B. Hawale Advocate for Respondents No.4 and 5 : Ms. Mayuri G. Kasturkar

¶7

WITH

¶8

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1851 OF 2026 IN ARBA/6/2026

¶9

AND 4 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2026

¶10

National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

Kashitnath Kisan Shinde And Others

¶13

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Kulkarni h/f Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh Dinkarrao Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. U. B. Bondar Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr. S. W. Munde

¶14

WITH

¶15

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1852 OF 2026 IN ARBA/7/2026

¶16

AND

¶17

5 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2026

¶18

National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director

¶19

VERSUS

¶20

Rajabhau Mahadeo Shinde And Others

¶21

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Kulkarni h/f Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh Dinkarrao Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Atul B. Hawale Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3 : Mr. Rahul B. Bagul

¶22

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1853 OF 2026 IN ARBA/8/2026

¶23

… AND 37 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2026

¶24

National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director

¶25

VERSUS

¶26

Bhagubai Jayram Munne And Others

¶27

Page 1 of 5

¶28

3 Arb Appeal 6-2026

¶29

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh Dinkarrao Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3: Mr. K. S. Solanke

¶30

WITH

¶31

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2594 OF 2026 IN ARBA/3/2026

¶32

WITH

¶33

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1796 OF 2026 IN ARBA/3/2026

¶34

…

¶35

WITH ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2026

¶36

National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director VERSUS

¶37

Noorbanu Mahmad Usaman Kureshi And Others

¶38

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Kulkarni h/f Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh Dinkarrao Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Hawale Atul B.

¶39

Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3 : Mr. Ravi R. Bangar

¶40

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1798 OF 2026 IN ARBA/4/2026

¶41

AND

¶42

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2026

¶43

National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director VERSUS

¶44

Bansidhar Pandurang Munne And Others

¶45

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh Dinkarrao Advocate for Respondents-CALA : Mr. S. W. Munde

¶46

WITH

¶47

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4705 OF 2026 IN ARBA/88/2026

¶48

…

¶49

AND

¶50

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2026

¶51

Page 2 of 5

¶52

3 Arb Appeal 6-2026

¶53

National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director VERSUS

¶54

Sakharam Shahadeo Shinde And Others

¶55

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh Dinkarrao Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3 : Mr. Nandkishore U. Yadav

¶56

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4706 OF 2026 IN ARBA/89/2026

¶57

AND ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2026

¶58

National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director

¶59

VERSUS

¶60

Baburao Kisan Shinde And Others

¶61

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh Dinkarrao Advocate for Respondents-CALA : Mr. S. W. Munde

¶62

WITH

¶63

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4707 OF 2026 IN ARBA/90/2026

¶64

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. Dated : April 20, 2026

¶65

PER COURT :

¶66

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the matter was remanded by the District Court, Beed on account of failure to provide proper opportunity to the claimants to lead evidence. It is further submitted that, upon remand, enhanced compensation has been granted in certain cases. Considering the overall factual situation, it is urged that this

¶67

Page 3 of 5

¶68

3 Arb Appeal 6-2026

¶69

Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ought not to entertain the present appeals.

¶70

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that sufficient opportunity was given to the claimants to lead their case before the learned Arbitrator and, therefore, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act ought not to have interfered with the Arbitral Award.

¶71

Perused the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Beed. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge has quashed and set aside the Arbitral Award and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. While remanding the matter, it has been observed that the Award is against the fundamental policy of Indian law, contrary to the basic notions of justice, and is patently illegal. It is further observed that the learned Arbitrator has discriminated between similarly situated persons.

¶72

On perusal of the order, it appears that the District Court examined the Roznama of the proceedings before the learned Arbitrator and found that the matter was listed on 04/02/2019 but was not taken up. A subsequent date was stated to have been granted, however, the Roznama for such date is missing, and thereafter, the Award appears to have been passed abruptly. The District Court has further observed that, upon detailed

¶73

Page 4 of 5

¶74

3 Arb Appeal 6-2026

¶75

examination, that the claimants were not given sufficient opportunity to present their case. It has been held that under Section 18, parties are required to be treated with equality and must be afforded a full opportunity to present their case.

¶76

Considering these aspects, the District Court has invoked its powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It has also taken into account that in other similar matters, enhanced compensation has been granted, and therefore, parity is required to be maintained among similarly situated claimants.

¶77

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Hence, all the appeals are dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of.

¶78

vj gawade/-.

¶79

Page 5 of 5

National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director v. Noorbanu Mahmad Usaman Kureshi and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director v. Noorbanu Mahmad Usaman Kureshi and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yash Multi State Rural Cooperative Creadit Society Ltd. through Pravin Balasaheb Chaudhari vs Shri Bharat Arjundas Narang and Others

Nau Kondiba Ingole through Lrs Mahadu Kondiba Ingole and Others vs Shankarlal Ganeshlal Mundada and Others

Aftab Shaikh Akhlakh Ahmed Shaikh vs M/S New Patel Develpers through Its Propeietor Patel Abdul Wajid Abdul Sami Patel

National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director vs Kashinath Kaisan Shinde and others

Sahebrao Vyankatrao Deshmukh vs Digambar Vyankatrao Deshmukh Chandrakalabai and Anr.

Sangita Sunil Patil and Another vs National Highways Authority of India, Piu, Jalgaon thru. its Project Dir. Shivaji v. Pawar and Anr.