Supreme Court: An arbitral award can be set aside under S 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 on limited grounds

Firstly, when we are of the opinion that the learned Arbitrator has committed patent illegality in applying two different notifications in determining the market value, keeping in view the scope available Under Section 34 of Act, 1996 it would not be open for this Court to substitute our view to that of the learned Arbitrator and modify the award. Further, the learned Additional Solicitor General sought to refer to Special Instruction No. 6 in the notification of 2014 to arrive at the market value even if it is accepted that the value of industrial land is not indicated in the notification. These are aspects to which the learned Arbitrator is required to advert so as to arrive at the conclusion. In the circumstance where we have opined that the award passed by the learned Arbitrator suffers from patent illegality and appropriate consideration is necessary, the only course open is to set aside the award and allow the learned Arbitrator to reconsider the matter on that aspect. {Para 48}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4671 of 2022.

Decided On: 11.07.2022

National Highways Authority of India Vs. P. Nagaraju and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.

Author: A.S. Bopanna, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0850/2022.

Print Page

Supreme Court: S. 14 Limitation Act is Applicable To Proceedings Under Arbitration & Conciliation Act

 Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the

opinion that the issue is covered by the decision of this

court in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principal

Secretary, Irrigation Dept. 2008 (7) SCC 169. (supra). {Para 9}

10. We may hasten to add that when the substantive remedies

under Sections 34 and/or 37 of the Arbitration Act are by

their very nature limited in their scope due to statutory

prescription, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

, it is necessary to interpret the limitation

provisions liberally, or else, even that limited window to

challenge an arbitral award will be lost. The remedies under

Sections 34 and 37 are precious. Courts of law will keep in

mind the need to secure and protect such a remedy while

calculating the period of limitation for invoking these

jurisdictions.

11. Applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, we hold that

there is sufficient cause for excluding the period commencing

from 20.10.2011 to 23.02.2012. In view of the fact that this

period is excluded, the appellant will be entitled to the

statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Act.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.12849-12856/2024

KIRPAL SINGH  Vs GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & ORS. 

Dated: November 21,2024. 

Citation: 2024 INSC 944.

Print Page

Supreme Court direct National highway authority of india to make part payment of compensation for acquired land

 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present proceedings with the following directions:

i. The NHAI shall deposit 50 per cent of the compensation amount, as awarded by the Arbitral Court, with the Executing Court within a period of four weeks. The said amount shall be released to the land owners unconditionally.

ii. The learned District Court, before whom the proceedings under Section-34 of the Arbitration Act are pending, shall make an endeavour to decide such proceedings within a period of six months.

iii. The balance amount of compensation as per the Award to be passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, shall be deposited by the NHAI with the Executing Court within four weeks after such determination. The said amount shall also be released by the Executing Court in favour of the landowners subject to the rights and remedies available, to the parties in law. {Para 6}

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.)

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12409/2022

Project Director National Highways Authority of India Vs Saraswatibai Chandrakant Shinde and Others 

Decided on August 1, 2022

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1115.

Print Page

Whether the court can direct part payment of compensation amount during pendency of application challenging arbitration award U/S 34 of Arbitration Act?

7. We disapprove the entertaining of such writ petitions Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, without relegating the judgment creditor in whose favour the award is passed to file an execution proceeding before the competent Executing Court.

7.1. In view of the above discussion, we would have set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court on the aforesaid ground alone. However, taking into consideration the similar order passed by this Court in the case of Saraswatibai Chandrakant Shinde (supra), we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present proceedings/appeal with the following directions:

(i) The NHAI shall deposit 50 per cent of the compensation amount, as awarded by the Arbitral Court, with the Executing Court within a period of four weeks. The said amount shall be released to the land owners unconditionally.

(ii) The learned District Court, before whom the proceedings Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act are pending, shall make an endeavour to decide such proceedings within a period of six months from the next date of hearing before the said court.

(iii) The balance amount of compensation as per the Award to be passed Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, shall be deposited by the NHAI with the Executing Court within four weeks after such determination. The said amount shall also be released by the Executing Court in favour of the land owners subject to the rights and remedies available to the parties in law.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5256 of 2022

Decided On: 24.08.2022

National Highways Authority of India Vs. Sheetal Jaidev Vade and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

Author: M.R. Shah, J.

Citation: 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 1070, MANU/SC/1033/2022.

Print Page