Dismissed

S. Shanmukhappa v. the Special Land Acquistion Officer

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2023MFA/1941/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal challenged the trial court's dismissal of an objection to an arbitral award for being time-barred. The court rejected the analogy that Section 37 delay condonation applies to Section 34, affirming the strict 120-day limitation under Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is dismissed.

S. Shanmukhappa Vs the Special Land Acquistion Officer — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:19467-DB MFA No. 1941 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^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 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1941 OF 2022 (AA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

S. SHANMUKHAPPA, S/O LATE SANNA KALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND RETIRED OFFICIAL, R/O BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, 3^RD CROSS, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER, AND INDIA NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, JCR II CROSS RIGHT SIDE, CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501.

¶16

THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AND ARBITRATOR (NH-13), CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(c) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2021 PASSED IN AA.NO.16/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE ARBITRATION APPEAL AS

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:19467-DB MFA No. 1941 of 2022

¶22

BARRED BY TIME, FILED UNDER SECTION 34 (2) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Sri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶26

Heard on the question of Admission.

¶27

This appeal under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration

¶28

and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'

¶29

for short) has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the Trial Court by which objections preferred by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act have been dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶30

Admittedly, in the instant case, an award was passed on 07.02.2019. The aforesaid award was served on the appellant on 23.02.2019. The appellant ought to have filed an objection under Section 34 of the Act on or before 23.05.2019 and thereafter, could have filed objections within a further period of 30 days along with the application for condonation of delay. The further period of 30 days expired on 30.06.2019.

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:19467-DB MFA No. 1941 of 2022

¶32

The appellant thereafter filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act on 16.10.2019. The Trial Court by an order dated 20.12.2021 has dismissed the petition on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal arises for our consideration.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal under Section 37 of the Act can be condoned, therefore, on the same analogy, the delay in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Act should also be condoned. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in

¶34

GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA (WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT) REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER vs M/S BORSE BROTHERS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. Civil Appeal No.995/2021 (@SLP (CIVIL) No.665/2021) and connected matters.

¶35

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

¶36

7. In SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs

¶37

UNION OF INDIA ((2019)2 SCC 455), it has been held by

¶38

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:19467-DB MFA No. 1941 of 2022

¶39

Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the Court has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 120 days to entertain any objections to the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, objection under Section 34 of the Act was filed beyond 120 days. Therefore, the Court had no power to condone the delay and the objections filed by the appellant has rightly been dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶40

The fact that delay in filing the appeal under Section 37 of the Act can be condoned is of no assistance to the appellant as proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act expressly provides that the Court can condone the delay of only 30 days beyond the period of 90 days. In GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA ( supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the issue of condonation of delay in respect of appeals filed under Section 37 of the Act is of no assistance to the appellant in the facts of the case.

¶41