M/S Ganesha Food Processors Throu. Nikhil R Agarwal v. the Land Acquisition Officer and Dy Collector General Administraion and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 where statutory arbitration remedy already invoked; compensation for easementary/appurtenant rights under S.19B(5), Maharashtra Highways Act 1955 (procedure S.19B(6)-(7)); statutory arbitration S.19B(8) before Divisional Commissioner; Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 challenges and fresh arbitration rounds; writ jurisdiction refused amid pending proceedings to avoid parallel proceedings; precedents distinguished: NHAI v. Resham Singh (2023) SCC OnLine P&H 7228; Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019) 9 SCC 304; liberty to amend statements of claim / Section 34 applications; sympathetic consideration without technicalities; mandate expiry and private arbitrators; Bombay HC, Coram Manish Pitale & Shreeram V. Shirsat JJ., decided 6 January 2026; writ petitions disposed.
What did the court decide?
Writ Petitions disposed of with liberty: (a) to apply to the statutory arbitrator (Divisional Commissioner)/substituted arbitrators in pending arbitral proceedings for amendment of statements of claim to incorporate the Section 19 B(5) easementary-rights compensation issue; (b) in cases where Section 34 applications are pending before competent courts, to apply to those courts to amend the applications likewise; (c) in cases where Section 34 applications succeeded and awards were set aside with fresh arbitration ordered, clause (a) liberty applies equally; (d) the statutory arbitrator and the competent courts are directed to consider such applications sympathetically and in accordance with law without insisting on technicalities; and the directions extend equally to matters where the statutory arbitrator's mandate has expired and private arbitrators were appointed. Pending applications, if any, also disposed of.