National Highways Authority Of ... vs Sri. U K Monu
2022 Latest Caselaw 9150 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                       PRESENT
        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                        AND

          THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

              M.F.A.NO.6959 OF 2021 (AA)

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY
OF INDIA
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
UNIT, DOOR NO. 3-29,
BETHEL, THARETHOTA
NEAR PUMPWELL
(NH-66) MANGALORE 575005
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROJECT DIRECTOR
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY. SRI. HANUMANTHA REDDY G, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI. U K MONU
       MAJOR
       S/O LATE KOJABBA
       UNIVERSITY ROAD
       KOTEKAR VILLAGE
       MANGALURU - 575 146

2.     THE ARBITRATOR &
       DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
       D.K. DISTRICT
       MANGALURU - 575 001
                                      ... RESPONDENTS

     THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(C) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE CASE ARBITRATION
                            2



PROCEEDING IN NO.C.DIS.ARB (2) NH.LAQ. CR-68/2016-17
DATED 12.02.2019, ON THE FILE OF ARBITRATOR AND
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA AND
A.S.NO.75/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, D.K.DISTRICT MANGALURU
AND AFTER LOOKING INTO THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPUGNED
ORDER IN ARBITRATION SUIT NO.75/2019 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, D.K.,
MANGALURU BE PLEASED TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER AND SET ASIDE THE ARBITRAL AWARD
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                     JUDGMENT

Sri. Hanumantha Reddy G., learned counsel for

the appellant.

This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Act', for short) has been filed against the judgment

dated 04.12.2020 by which objection preferred by the

appellant under Section 34 of the Act has been

dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that the appellant is a statutory

authority constituted under Section 3 of the National

Highways Authority of India Act, 1988. The respondent

No.1 was the owner of dry land measuring 870 square

meters of Sy.No.121/2 situated at Permannur Village,

Mangalore Taluk. The said land was acquired by the

National Highway Authority for widening of N.H.66. The

Land Acquisition Officer passed an award and awarded a

sum of Rs.32,24,611/- as compensation to the

respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 thereupon filed

an application seeking enhancement of compensation

before the Arbitrator who, by an award dated

12.02.2019, enhanced the amount of compensation to

Rs.2,01,600/- per cent with interest at 9% p.a.

3. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a petition

under Section 34 of the Act on 19.09.2019 before the

Trial Court along with an application seeking

condonation of delay. Section 34(3) of the Act provides

that an application for setting aside of an award may

not be made after three months have elapsed from the

date on which the party making that application had

received the arbitral award. The proviso further

empowers the Court to condone the delay of a further

period of 30 days but not thereafter. The said provision

has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and it has

been held that the time lines prescribed therein are

mandatory and the Court has no power to condone the

delay beyond the period of 30 days after the limitation

of 90 days of filing the appeal expires. In the instant

case, the appellant, after the expiry of 120 days which

expired on 25.08.2019, filed objection under Section 34

of the Act, on 19.09.2019. The Trial Court, by the

impugned judgment, has rejected the aforesaid

objection. In the aforesaid factual background, this

appeal has been filed.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the

appellant at length. In view of the law laid down by the

Supreme Court in 'SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE

LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA' (2019) 2 SCC 455,

it is evident that the Court has no power to condone the

delay beyond the period of 120 days to entertain any

objection to the arbitral award under Section 34 of the

Act.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly

submitted that the appellant has not produced any

material before the Trial Court in respect of the

averments that the copy of the award was received by it

on 26.04.2019. The aforesaid fact has also been

recorded by the Trial Court in paragraph 10 of the

judgment. In the absence of any proof with regard to

service of copy of the award on 26.04.2019, the

objection preferred by the appellant under Section 34 of

the Act, was clearly barred by limitation and the Court

had no power to condone the delay. The impugned

order, therefore, does not require any interference in

this appeal.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Mds/-