NHAI appealed under Section 37(1)(c) against rejection of its Section 34 challenge to an arbitral award enhancing land acquisition compensation. The High Court found the District Court's reasoned order on limitation and compensation payment unassailable within the limited scope of Section 37(1)(c) and dismissed the appeal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3382 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT IMPLEMENTAITON UNIT-BANGALORE, SY NO.13, 14TH KM, NAGASANDRA BANGALORE-TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 073 REP. BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, K.B. JAYAKUMARA.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASHA ANGADI B V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:43634 MFA No. 3382 of 2023
(NHAI) SOMPURA-HOSKOTE SECTION, NEAR SHRIGANDHA PETROL BUNK, SITE OFFICE NELMANGALA, NELMANGALA.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANAPATHI C V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. GOPALKRISHNA SOODI., AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(c) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2023 PASSED IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.15007/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, DEVANAHALLI, REJECTING THE ARBITRATION PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE A AND C ACT R/W ORDER VII RULE -1 OF CPC AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and counsel appearing for respondents.
the order passed by the V Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Devanahalli, dismissing the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,
for short) read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC by National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as 'NHAI', for short).
the proviso to Section 37(1)(c) of the Act that the Trial Court has committed an error in confirming the Arbitral Award dated 11.01.2022 without application of mind. Learned Counsel also vehemently contend that the court was pleased to appreciate the contention of the NHAI that the Arbitrator has not assigned any acceptable reasons to enhance the compensation at 100% and the amount decided by the SLAO and the Arbitrator has passed the impugned Award arbitrarily and contrary to the findings given and hence, the order of impugned is erroneous. Learned Counsel further contended that the District Court has committed an error in not considering the grounds which have been urged. Learned Counsel for the appellant also vehemently contend that the Trial Court has lost sight of the fact that as per the provisions of Section 3G(7) of
the National Highways Act, the market value and status of the land as per available documents as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A has to be considered for determining compensation and accordingly, the SLAO has passed the award. Learned Counsel also vehemently contended that when there was a delay in filing the Reference that too made after 7 years of the award passed in the year 2013 ought not to have granted the interest for the delay of 7 years and hence, it requires interference.
that the limitation starts to run from the date of notice of Award. Learned Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the District Court also in paragraph No.23 has made observations that no document is placed before the Court that the Reference is beyond 3 years and that apart from that taken note of the fact that the compensation amount was paid in the year 2020 and the said fact needs to be accepted as contended by the respondents. So also taken note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uttam Namdeo Mahale Vs. Vithal Deo and Others, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 73, wherein also the Apex Court has also observed that "in the absence of any specific limitation prescribed thereunder, necessary implication is that the general law of the limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act stands excluded" and the District Court has given reasons while dismissing the application filed under Section 34 of the Act, and hence, it does not require interference.
State also would submit that the reasoning is given while
dismissing the Arbitration Petition by the District Court.
and also the Counsel appearing for the respondents and the fact that the notification was issued in the year 2011 is not in dispute and also the Award was passed in the year 2013 is also not in dispute. The records also disclosed that having paid the compensation in the year 2020, the same is also taken note by the District Court while considering the matter and also the fact that the Reference was filed in the year 2020. When such being the case, in paragraphs No.23 and 24 of the order, the District Court has taken note of the said fact and also taken note of the provisions of the Article 137 of the Limitation Act and so also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1997) 6 SCC 73 . Learned Counsel for the appellant does not disputed the fact that the matter is pending consideration before the Hon'ble
Apex Court with regard to the limitation is concerned. When such being the case, when the Trial Court has passed the reasoned order taking note of the year of acquisition notification, determination of compensation and payment of compensation, and also taken note of the fact that no material is placed before the Court that the Reference is filed after a period of limitation. When such reason is given by the District Court while dismissing the application, the scope of application filed under Section 37 (1)(c) of the Act is also very limited. Even Section 34 is also only for the limited extent. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Arbitrator as well as the Appellate Authority invoking the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, so also Section 37 (1)(c), wherein only in a exceptional circumstance, the Court can exercise the power and the same is very limited and the scope and ambit also very limited. Hence, I do not find any ground to reverse the findings of the District Court as well as the Award passed by the Arbitrator.
NC: 2024:KHC:43634 MFA No. 3382 of 2023
following:
ORDER
The Miscellaneous First Appeal is
dismissed .
In view of disposal of the main appeal, pending I.As., do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of .
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
DL CT: JL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Court erred in dismissing NHAI's Section 34 petition challenging the arbitral award enhancing compensation.
Whether a reference filed years after the SLAO award was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Uttam Namdeo Mahale Vs. Vithal Deo and OthersRelied on
(1997) 6 SCC 73 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit-Bangalore, rep. by its Project Director K.B. Jayakumara
Sri N. Nanjegowda
The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Devanahalli (Beerasandra)
The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority (NHAI), Sompura-Hoskote Section
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
