Remanded

National Highways Authority of India v. Sri R M Subbegowda

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2023MFA/1234/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This First Appeal against an Arbitration Court order was disposed of because the lower court rejected a Section 34 petition to set aside an award without recording reasons. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter for a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 03.09.2020 in Arbitration Suit No.02/2019 is set aside and remitted to the trial Court to decide the petition afresh by a speaking order within two months.

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri R M Subbegowda — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:19145-DB MFA No. 1234 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1234 OF 2021 (AA)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT RAMANAGARA, NEAR BASAVANAPURA (RAMADEVARAPADA) RAMANAGARA 562128, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,

¶12

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (TECH) AND PROJECT DIRECTOR B T SRIDHARA

¶14

(BY SRI. PRAKASHA ANGADI B V.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

…APPELLANT

¶17

SRI R M SUBBEGOWDA

¶18

S/O MUGUREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO 134 MATHRUSHREE NILAYA, 4TH CROSS K MARIGOWDA LAYOUT, MANDYA CITY.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:19145-DB MFA No. 1234 of 2021

¶21

THE ARBITRATOR AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.N. MADHUSUDHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R2)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.37(1)(c) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.09.2020 PASSED IN A.S.NO.02/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S.34 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT R/W ORDER VII RULE 1 OF CPC.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal under Section 37[1][c] of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] is filed against the Judgment dated 03.09.2020 in Arbitration Suit No.02/2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya [hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'] by which objections preferred by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act has been rejected.

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:19145-DB MFA No. 1234 of 2021

¶29

The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are thus:

¶30

The Award dated 20.07.2019 was passed by the Arbitrator by which compensation in respect of commercial land was determined at the rate of Rs.700/- per square foot. The appellant being aggrieved by the Award, filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act which has been dismissed by the trial Court vide Judgment dated 03.09.2020.

¶31

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the records.

¶32

It is well settled in law that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘ S.N. MUKHERJEE V. UNION OF

¶33

INDIA’ , (1990) 4 SCC 594 has held that the decisions

¶34

of this Court referred to above indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons, the approach of this Court is more in line with that of the American courts. An

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:19145-DB MFA No. 1234 of 2021

¶36

important consideration which has weighed with the court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power.

¶37

It is trite law that even a quasi-judicial authority is

¶38

required to assign reasons for passing the order. In view of the decision laid down by the Supreme court in ‘VICTORIA

¶39

MEMORIAL HALL vs. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK’, 2010 (3) SCC 732, reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making process. [ SEE: ‘ MAYA DEVI

¶40

VS. RAJ KUMARI BATRA AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 486,

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:19145-DB MFA No. 1234 of 2021

¶42

‘SANT LAL GUPTA AND OTHERS VS. MODERN COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS’, (2010) 13 SCC 336, ‘UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. TALWINDER SINGH’, (2012) 5 SCC 480, and ‘UNION OF INDIA VS. RAVINDER KUMAR’, (2015) 12 SCC 291].

¶43

In the light of the aforesaid well settled legal principles, we have gone through the Judgment dated 03.09.2020. From the perusal of the Judgment dated 03.09.2020, it is evident that the Judgment only contends the conclusion and not the reasons. The learned trial Judge has merely held that there is no irregularity or error in the Award passed by the Arbitrator and the petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act is not maintainable. Since the learned trial Judge has not assigned any reasons for rejecting the petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act, the remand of the matter is inevitable.

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:19145-DB MFA No. 1234 of 2021

¶45

For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned

¶46

order dated 03.09.2020 in Arbitration Suit No.02/2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court to decide the petition afresh by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶47

The parties undertake to appear before the trial Court on 26.06.2023. Therefore, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the proceedings within two months.

¶48

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

AN/-

National Highways Authority of India v. Sri R M Subbegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Highways Authority of India v. Sri R M Subbegowda

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

State of Karnataka Vs Narayana Rao P a

Smt S Premaleela Vs K B Jayanna

M/S Stevia World Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrs Usha Medina

Sri Damodar Raju B K Vs Smt Saritha

Smt Rani Ramaswamy Vs Centre for Development of Telematics

Tarannum Vs the State of Karnataka