Brahmashree Narayana Ghuru Seva Sangha R Vs the Project Director

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40866-DB MFA No. 480 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.480 OF 2025 (AA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BRAHMASHREE NARAYANA GHURU SEVA SANGHA (R) [R.NO.191/94-95] MANI VILLAGE, P.O. MANI - 574253 BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PRESIDET SURESHA S/O. LATE. NARAYANA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS SECRETARY, RAMESH POOJARY.M. S/O. LATE. ISHWARA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. M SUDHAKAR PAI, ADV.)

¶11

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NHAI, PIU NH-75 (48) HASSAN- B.C.ROAD DIVISION, THARETHOTA, NEAR PUMPWELL (N.H.66), MANGALURU - 575 005 (DK).

¶14

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (NHAI), N.H.75, HASSAN - B.C.ROAD DIVISION, NO.HIG-64, DTDC COURIER OFFICE BUILDING, 1^ST FLOOR, KHB COLONY, CHANNAPATNA, OPPOSITE KSRTC NEW BUS STAND, HASSAN-573201.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:40866-DB MFA No. 480 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER / ARBITRATOR FOR N.H.A.I., D.K.DISTRICT, MANGALURU - 575001(DK).

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. PRASHANTHA M.S., ADV. AND SRI VASANT KOPPAR, ADV. FOR R1 & 2 SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R3)

¶21

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(C) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2024 PASSED IN AP.NO.55/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALURU, ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 34 (2) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT R/W ORDER 7 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶27

The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [ A&C Act ] impugning a judgment dated 27.09.2024 [ impugned order ] passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mangaluru [ Commercial Court ] in A.P.No.55/2022. The said order is common order passed in A.P.No.43/2022 and A.P.No.55/2022.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40866-DB MFA No. 480 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The present appeal is accordingly confined to the impugned order insofar as it relates to A.P.No.55/2022.

¶31

The parties had filed the said application before the Learned Commercial Court under Section 34 of A&C Act impugning an arbitral award dated 19.04.2022 passed by respondent No.3 [Deputy Commissioner] whereby the amount of compensation awarded for acquisition of the appellant's land was enhanced slightly.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant is not aggrieved by the impugned order inasmuch as the relief sought – that is to set aside the arbitral award dated 19.04.2022 – has been allowed. He however submits that the learned Commercial Court has erred in not remanding the matter to the learned arbitrator for consideration of question.

¶33

The power of the Commercial Court under Section 34 of the A&C Act is confined to considering whether to set aside the arbitral award and it does not have power to remand the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal. A plain reading of Section 34(1) of the A&C Act indicates that recourse against an arbitral award is confined to

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40866-DB MFA No. 480 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

setting aside the award in accordance with Sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 34 of the A&C Act. Now, Sub-Section (4) of Section 34 of the A&C Act empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to adjourn the proceedings in order to give the Arbitral Tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or take such other action as would eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award.

¶37

The appellant had not filed any application under Section 34(4) of the A&C Act and it is not the appellant's case that the proceedings ought to have been adjourned by the Court to enable the Arbitral Tribunal to remedy the award on which it is challenged for sustaining the award.

¶38

In view of the above, we find no fault in the decision of the learned Commercial Court in not remanding the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal. We however, clarify that if the appellant is otherwise entitled to re-initiate the arbitral proceedings in accordance with law, the present proceeding would not preclude the appellant from doing so, albeit in accordance with law.

¶39