Dismissed

V.G.Subramani v. The Arbitrator and District Collector

Madras HC14 Dec 2022WP/33546/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking enhanced land compensation, the Madras High Court held that a writ under Article 226 is not maintainable for execution of an arbitrator's award. The Court ruled that the proper remedy is an execution petition under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, dismissing the petition and granting liberty to file it within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of writ petition; liberty granted to file execution petition under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within two weeks.

V.G.Subramani Vs The Arbitrator and District Collector — Arbitration | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.33546 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.12.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.33546 of 2022

¶7

Mr.V.G.Subramani Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

The Arbitrator & District Collector, Thiruvallur District.

¶10

The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit – Chennai, “Sri Tower”, 3^rd floor DP – 34(SP), Chennai – 600 032.

¶11

The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), NH 205, No.3 & 4, Lal Bagadhur Sasthiri Street, Periyakuppam Railway Street, Near Thulasi Theatre, Thiruvallur – 602 001. … Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to pay the petitioner the enhanced compensation as per the proceedings of the 1^st respondent made in R.C.No.24516/2016/F2/Arbitration dated 31.08.2020 for the petitioner's lands measuring to an extent 682 sq.mtr situated in S.No.132/10B 1/7

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.P.No.33546 of 2022

¶15

Panappakkam Village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur District within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Saravanan For Respondents : Mrs.N.Senthil Selvi Government Advocate [R1 Mr.SU.Srinivasan Standing Counsel for NHAI [R2 & R3]

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to pay the petitioner enhanced compensation as per the proceedings of the 1^st respondent made in R.C.No.24516/2016/F2/Arbitration dated 31.08.2020 for the petitioner's lands measuring to an extent 682 sq.mtr situated in S.No.132/10B Panappakkam Village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur District within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

¶19

In this case, the petitioner was able to get a favourable order

¶20

from the District Collector/Arbitrator under Section 3(G)5 of the National Highways Act.

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

2/7

¶23

W.P.No.33546 of 2022

¶24

Even though such an award was passed by the District Collector

¶25

longtime back, according to the petitioner, no appeal has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') before the Appellate Authority/District Collector. Therefore, in order to enforce the said award i.e. the execution of the same, seeking for writ of mandamus by giving a direction to the 3^rd respondent to disburse the amount as per the enhanced award passed by the District Collector/Arbitrator, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶26

However, Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel appearing

¶27

for respondents 2 and 3 on instruction would submit that, in this case appeal has been preferred under Section 34 of the Act and that appeal is pending before the concerned appellate forum.

¶28

Assuming that the appeal is so far not taken up for hearing, that

¶29

would not make this petitioner entile to seek for any mandamus by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The only remedy open to the petitioner to seek for execution of the award passed by the District Collector/Arbitrator is to file necessary petition i.e. Execution Petition before the concerned Court under Section https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7

¶30

W.P.No.33546 of 2022

¶31

36 of the Act, where if such an application is filed for execution, the same can be decided and execution can be made by the concerned Court by invoking the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

¶32

I have considered the said submissions made by the learned

¶33

counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶34

As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel

¶35

appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, the Courts have already taken a view that, as against the order/award passed by the District Collector/Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, if appeal is not filed or even appeal is filed after expiry of the appeal time to be filed under Section 34 of the Act, execution petition can be moved by the person, who received an award in his favour only under Section 36 of the Act and for the said purpose Article 226 cannot be invoked, therefore the writ petition may not be entertained at this juncture.

¶36

Since that view has already been taken in some of the decisions

¶37

which have been quoted by the learned Standing Counsel for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7

¶38

W.P.No.33546 of 2022

¶39

respondents, this Court is of the considered view that, the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted, hence the writ petition is rejected with the liberty to the petitioner to file necessary petition under Section 36 of the Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

If such petition is filed under Section 36 of the Act as indicated above within a time frame, it is open to the concerned Court to take up the same and expedite the hearing for the execution. Unless any such order is passed by the appellate forum in the appeal filed under Section 34 of the Act as expeditiously as possible even though the petitioner secured an order from the Arbitrator/District Collector in his favour is not able to get their fruits. It is also for the concerned Court to consider the appeal already filed, by the 2^nd respondent as claimed by the learned Standing Counsel and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law at the earliest.

¶41

With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶42

costs.

¶43

5/7

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.33546 of 2022

¶46

14.12.2022

¶47

Index : Yes/No Speaking order: Yes/No

¶48

¶49

¶50

The Arbitrator & District Collector, Thiruvallur District.

¶51

The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit – Chennai, “Sri Tower”, 3^rd floor DP – 34(SP), Chennai – 600 032.

¶52

The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), NH 205, No.3 & 4, Lal Bagadhur Sasthiri Street, Periyakuppam Railway Street, Near Thulasi Theatre, Thiruvallur – 602 001.

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

6/7

¶55

W.P.No.33546 of 2022

¶56

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶57

¶58

W.P.No.33546 of 2022

¶59

14.12.2022

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

7/7

V.G.Subramani v. The Arbitrator and District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.G.Subramani v. The Arbitrator and District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rt Eti Environtech Private Limited, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Ramakrishnan, Vs The Additional Chief Secretary

D.Kumarammal Vs Rajamani

R.Balakrishnan Vs The District Collector

E.Shankar Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M.v.Nanjundappa Vs the Collector of Krishnagiri