Allowed

The Deputy General Manager v. Durgavva W/O. Devappa Bannimatti

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2024MFA/102334/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NHAI appealed an arbitration award enhancement in land-acquisition compensation. Citing the Supreme Court ruling that Section 34 courts may only set aside or remand awards, not modify them, the High Court set aside the District Judge's modifying order and remanded the matter for fresh reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri to reconsider afresh in accordance with law.

The Deputy General Manager Vs Durgavva W/O. Devappa Bannimatti — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15764-DB MFA No. 102334 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102334 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (TECH) AND THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, SHIVA KRUPA NIVAS, VIVEKANAND NAGAR, 2^ND CROSS, NEXT TO EXCELLENT NEET ACADEMY, VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD-580004.

¶11

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.11.05 11:28:44 +0530

¶13

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR LAND ACQUISITION, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NH-4, “DHARA MAHAL”, UB HILL, 5^TH CROSS, DHARWAD-580007.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. S.G.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

DURGAVVA W/O. DEVAPPA BANNIMATTI,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15764-DB MFA No. 102334 of 2024

¶19

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIGGAON, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-58105.

¶20

THE ARBITRATOR FOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NH-4 AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.37(1) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HAVERI IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.72/2023 DATED 27.01.2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.BARRED BY PERIOD OF LIMITATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15764-DB MFA No. 102334 of 2024

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

¶31

This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Arbitration Petition No.72/2023.

¶32

Respondent No.1 herein is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.203/3 measuring 4000 square meters situated at Bankapur village of Shiggaon Taluk of Haveri District. The appellant-authority herein acquired the said land in dispute for the purpose of construction of national highway under preliminary notification dated 11.08.2020 issued under Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and final notification dated 29.10.2020 issued under Section 3(D) of the National Highways Act. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award on 25.01.2021 by fixing the value of the land for a sum of Rs.163/- per square meter. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1 herein approached the Arbitrator by filing a petition under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act. The Arbitrator has allowed the petition and has enhanced the

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15764-DB MFA No. 102334 of 2024

¶34

award amount. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed an arbitration petition in Arbitration Petition No.72/2023 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and modified the award passed by the Arbitrator by enhancing the compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court.

¶35

The learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the order passed by this Court in similar circumstances in M.F.A. No.2930/2020 disposed of on 11.01.2023 following the Apex Court judgment in the case of Project Director, National Highways Authority of India vs. M.Hakeem and another¹ , while dealing with the powers of learned District Court in a suit filed under Section 34 or the Act, in paragraphs 42 and 48 has held as follows:

¶36

“42. It can therefore be said that this question has

¶37

now been settled finally by at least 3 decisions of this Court. Even otherwise, to state that the judicial trend

¶38

1 (2021) 9 SCC 1

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15764-DB MFA No. 102334 of 2024

¶40

appears to favour an interpretation that would read into Section 34 a power to modify, revise or vary the award would be to ignore the previous law contained in the 1940 Act; as also to ignore the fact that the 1996 Act was enacted based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985 which, as has been pointed out in Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, makes it clear that, given the limited judicial interference on extremely limited grounds not dealing with the merits of an award, the ‘limited remedy’ under Section 34 is co-terminus with the ‘limited right’, namely, either to set aside an award or remand the matter under the circumstances mentioned in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.

¶41

XXXX

¶42

48. Quite obviously if one were to include the power to modify an award in Section 34, one would be crossing the Lakshman Rekha and doing what, according to the justice of a case, ought to be done. In interpreting a statutory provision, a Judge must put himself in the shoes of Parliament and then ask whether Parliament intended this result. Parliament very clearly intended that no power of modification of an award exists in

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15764-DB MFA No. 102334 of 2024

¶44

Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. It is only for Parliament to amend the aforesaid provision in the light of the experience of the courts in the working of the Arbitration Act, 1996, and bring it in line with other legislations the world over.”

¶45

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned AGA for respondent No.2 do not dispute the proposition of law held by the Apex Court in the above said case.

¶46

In view of the above judgment of the Apex Court, it

¶47

is clear that the District Court in a suit filed under Section 34 of the Act has only power either to confirm the order passed by the Arbitrator or set aside the order and remand the matter to the Arbitrator. But, in the case on hand, the learned District Judge has modified the order passed by the Arbitrator and the same is contrary to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable.

¶48

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Arbitration Petition No.72/2023 filed

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15764-DB MFA No. 102334 of 2024

¶51

under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri.

¶52

The learned District Judge is directed to reconsider

¶53

the matter afresh and in accordance with law.

¶54

Sd/(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶57

RSH / Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

The Deputy General Manager v. Durgavva W/O. Devappa Bannimatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy General Manager v. Durgavva W/O. Devappa Bannimatti

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

Ashrafali Bakasheesab Godekar Vs Dadapeer S/O. Saifuddin Torgal

Dadapper S/O Saifudin Torgal Vs Ashrafali S/O Bakasheesab Godekar

Smt. Pratibha W/O Hanumant Tikare Vs Yallangouda S/O Hanamantagouda Chakalabbi

The Divisional Controller Vs Smt. Sharadha W/O Nagesh Devadiga

M/S Rajeev Traders Vs the Union of India

Shri. Bhimappa S/O Adiveppa Hadapad Vs Dr. Ajay Naghabushan M N