Disposed

S.Gunasekar v. the Project Director

Madras HC11 Jul 2024CRP/474/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A landowner's arbitration original petition sought enhancement of the arbitrator's compensation award for acquired land; papers were repeatedly returned over court fee. The High Court held Section 34 permits only setting aside an award, not enhancement, and permitted amendment of the prayer to a set-aside prayer without ad valorem fee.

What did the court decide?

Papers returned to counsel; petitioner permitted to amend prayer to one for setting aside the award and re-present before Principal District Court, Erode, without ad valorem court fee; no costs.

S.Gunasekar Vs the Project Director — Arbitration | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD).No.474 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No.474 of 2023

¶7

S.Gunasekar ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit (NS), D.No.212-3/D3-1, Sri Nagar Colony, Narasothipatti, Salem – 636 004.

¶10

2.The Competent Authority and The District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode.

¶11

3.The District Collector, Erode District, Erode. ... Respondents

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

C.R.P.(PD).No.474 of 2023

¶15

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Docket Order in CFR No.3398 of 2017 in Unnumbered A.O.P.No. of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, dated 29.06.2018.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ramaraj For R1 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan For R2 and R3 : Mr.T.Arunkumar Additional Government Pleader

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order passed by the learned

¶19

Principal District Judge, Erode in CFR No.3398 of 2017 in unnumbered A.O.P.No. of 2017, dated 29.06.2018.

¶20

A.O.P.No. of 2017 has been filed challenging the award of the Arbitrator namely District Collector, Erode District for the lands acquired in Attayampalayam Village, Erode Taluk and District.

¶21

A look at the prayer in A.O.P.No. of 2017 shows that the civil revision petitioner wanted to enhance the compensation awarded by the

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

C.R.P.(PD).No.474 of 2023

¶25

Arbitral Tribunal to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft. Thereafter, the case papers had been returned by the Principal District Judge, Erode on several occasions. It is now settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court that the Power under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is only available to set aside the award and there is no power in the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to enhance the compensation or substitute its reasons for the award.

¶26

When this factum was pointed to Mr.C.Ramaraj, who is representing the civil revision petitioner, he states that he will substitute the prayer (a) found in the arbitration original petition with a prayer to set aside the impugned award.

¶27

In the light of the subsequent willingness expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to substitute the prayer, I am inclined to pass the following order:-

¶28

(i) If the petitioner confines/limits his prayer only to set aside the award passed by the 3^rd respondent/Arbitrator, then the question of paying ad valorem court fee will not arise.

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

C.R.P.(PD).No.474 of 2023

¶32

(ii) The original papers have been filed before this Court in this revision. The

¶33

Registry is directed to return the original petition to the learned counsel

¶34

for the petitioner, after obtaining usual endorsement.

¶35

(iii) The petitioner is permitted to represent the papers before the learned

¶36

Principal District Court, Erode after making the necessary amendment to the prayer.

¶37

This view that is taken by me is in line with the view taken by my

¶38

brother Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.SOUNTHAR in C.R.P.No.1373 of 2021, dated 20.02.2024.

¶39

In view of the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition stands

¶40

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

11.07.2024

¶42

(6/9)

¶43

Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No dm

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

C.R.P.(PD).No.474 of 2023

¶47

¶48

1.The Principal District Court, Erode.

¶49

2.The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit (NS), D.No.212-3/D3-1, Sri Nagar Colony, Narasothipatti, Salem – 636 004.

¶50

3.The Competent Authority and The District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode.

¶51

4.The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.

¶52

5/6

¶53

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

¶54

C.R.P.(PD).No.474 of 2023

¶55

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶56

¶57

C.R.P.(PD).No.474 of 2023

¶58

11.07.2024 (6/9)

¶59

6/6

¶60

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

S.Gunasekar v. the Project Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Gunasekar v. the Project Director

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

Arunapriyanka Vs G.Nandhakumar

S.Savithri Vs R.Padmavathy

Chinna Rangappa Vs Ramu @ Raman

K.Thangamuthu Gounder (Died) Vs the Project Director

S.Gunasekar Vs the Project Director

C.Periyasamy Vs the Project Director