Disposed

Sukchand Sardar v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC7 Jul 2022WPA/790/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court directed the concerned authority to serve a signed copy of the arbitral award on the petitioner within one month, as no evidence demonstrated such service was made under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

What did the court decide?

Directed the concerned authority to serve a signed copy of the arbitral award on the petitioner within one month from the date of communication of the order.

Sukchand Sardar Vs Union of India and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

31 jdt.

¶2

07.07.2022 jb.

¶3

W.P.A. 790 of 2022

¶4

(Sukchand Sardar vs. Union of India & Ors.)

¶5

Mr. Parashar Baidya Mr. Partha Sarathi Das …. For the Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay Mr. Priyabrata Batabyal …. For the State

¶7

Ms. Monika Roy …. For the NHAI

¶8

Report in the form of affidavit filed by the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th respondents is taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶10

The primary grievance of the petitioner is that despite approaching the learned Arbitrator for enhancement of compensation amount paid to him under Section 3 G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the copy of the arbitral award was not served on him in terms of Section 31 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner has other grievance with regard to the findings arrived at by the learned Arbitrator.

¶11

¶12

Per contra, learned counsels for the State respondents as well as the NHAI submit that the arbitral award was passed after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner was aware of the said award all throughout despite which he chose to approach this Court after lapse of considerable period of time, such delay not being explained.

¶13

The petitioner further submits that the order passed by the learned Arbitrator cannot be termed as an arbitral award in terms of Section 31(5) of the Act of 1996.

¶14

The said contention of the petitioner is disputed by the respondents.

¶15

There is nothing on record to demonstrate that after conclusion of arbitration on 2^nd August, 2017 the signed copy of the order was served on the petitioner in terms of Section 31(5) of the Act of 1996.

¶16

In view of the same, the concerned Authority, being the 5^th respondent herein, is directed to serve a signed copy of the arbitral award upon the petitioner in terms of Section 31(5) of the Act of 1996 within one month from the date of communication of this order.

¶17

Upon receipt of the said signed copy, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance.

¶18

¶19

With the aforesaid observations and directions

¶20

the writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Since no affidavit has been invited, allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted.

¶23

Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities.

¶24

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)

Sukchand Sardar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukchand Sardar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Godrej Properties Limited Formerly Known as Happy Highrises Limited and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Prabir Dutta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

M/S Eastern Paper Mills Ltdand Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sumangal Sardar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Satya Sardar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Manick Chandra Das Vs Union of India and Ors.