Regarding a petition alleging non-service of an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court directed the 5th respondent to serve a signed copy within one month and dismissed the petition otherwise.
The 5th respondent directed to serve a signed copy of the arbitral award upon the petitioner within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
32 jdt.
07.07.2022 jb.
W.P.A. 792 of 2022 (Manick Chandra Das vs. Union of India & Ors.)
Mr. Parashar Baidya Mr. Partha Sarathi Das …. For the Petitioner
Mr. Ansar Mondal Ms. Pratima Ghatak …. For the State
Ms. Monika Roy …. For the NHAI
Report in the form of affidavit filed by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents is taken on record.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
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.
2
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.
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.
The said contention of the petitioner is disputed by the respondents.
There is nothing on record to demonstrate that after conclusion of arbitration on 2nd August, 2017 the signed copy of the order was served on the petitioner in terms of Section 31(5) of the Act of 1996.
In view of the same, the concerned Authority, being the 5th 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.
Upon receipt of the said signed copy, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance.
3
With the aforesaid observations and directions
the writ petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Since no affidavit has been invited, allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted.
Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the arbitral award copy was served on the petitioner and if relief should be granted for non-service.
Whether the petitioner can approach the appropriate forum for redressal after receiving the award.
Whether the petitioner must be granted time to serve notice after the award is produced.
Manick Chandra Das
Union of India
NHAI
Suvra Ghosh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
