The division judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for purposes of execution of the arbitration award.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the land belonging to the Petitioner was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (in short ‘NHAI’) and the compensation determined as per the award was not released. Then, the petitioner challenged the award before the Arbitrator (the District Collector) in terms of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 which was dismissed. Thereafter, the learned court after being satisfied that there was no challenge against the award directed to deposit the compensation amount to the Petitioner.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant submitted that the petitioner had not brought before the court that the award was under challenge under Section 354 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Observations of the court
The court relied upon the judgment titled National Highways Authority of India Vs. Sheetal Jaidev Vade & Others, in which instead of allowing the judgment creditor to bring an execution case before the appropriate Executing Court, the Hon. Supreme Court of India excluded the consideration of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the execution of awards made by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court.
The Hon’ble Court observed that the High Court ended up being an Executing Court by giving such instructions and that it was improper for it to have considered the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of executing the Award.
It was noted that the facts of the present case and the facts of the judgment cited above are similar. Furthermore, the appellant had initiated the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, however, the same could not be brought to the notice of the learned single Judge by the NHAI as when the judgment and order came to be passed, the appellant was not represented.
Based on these considerations, the court set aside the judgement and order passed by the learned single judge.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the writ appeal.
Case title: The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Vs. M/s. Vijayanagaram Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: WRIT APPEAL No.1170 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Raghunandan Rao
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Padma Rao G. S. Lakkaraju
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. G. Ramesh Babu, Mr. Jupudi V. K. Yagnadutt, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Mr. S.S. Varma, Standing Counsel
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
