S. Shanmukhappa vs The Special Land Acquistion ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3030 Kant

                                              -1-
                                                    NC: 2023:KHC:19467-DB
                                                         MFA No. 1941 of 2022




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                           PRESENT
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                             AND
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1941 OF 2022 (AA)
                   BETWEEN:
                   S. SHANMUKHAPPA,
                   S/O LATE SANNA KALLAPPA,
                   AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
                   AGRICULTURIST AND RETIRED OFFICIAL,
                   R/O BASAVESHWARA NAGARA,
                   3RD CROSS, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:
                   1.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER,
                         AND INDIA NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY,
                         JCR II CROSS RIGHT SIDE,
Digitally signed         CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501.
by BELUR
RANGADHAMA         2.    THE PLANNING DIRECTOR,
NANDINI
Location: HIGH           NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY,
COURT OF                 CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501.
KARNATAKA
                   3.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                         AND ARBITRATOR (NH-13),
                         CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
                                                              ...RESPONDENTS
                        THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(c) OF THE
                   ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AGAINST THE
                   ORDER DATED 20.12.2021 PASSED IN AA.NO.16/2019 ON THE
                   FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
                   CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE ARBITRATION APPEAL AS
                                 -2-
                                      NC: 2023:KHC:19467-DB
                                           MFA No. 1941 of 2022




BARRED BY TIME, FILED UNDER SECTION 34 (2) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996.

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

                           JUDGMENT

Sri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Heard on the question of Admission.

3. This appeal under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'

for short) has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2021

passed by the Trial Court by which objections preferred by the

appellant under Section 34 of the Act have been dismissed as

barred by limitation.

4. Admittedly, in the instant case, an award was

passed on 07.02.2019. The aforesaid award was served on the

appellant on 23.02.2019. The appellant ought to have filed an

objection under Section 34 of the Act on or before 23.05.2019

and thereafter, could have filed objections within a further

period of 30 days along with the application for condonation of

delay. The further period of 30 days expired on 30.06.2019.

NC: 2023:KHC:19467-DB MFA No. 1941 of 2022

The appellant thereafter filed a petition under Section 34 of the

Act on 16.10.2019. The Trial Court by an order dated

20.12.2021 has dismissed the petition on the ground that the

same is barred by limitation. In the aforesaid factual

background, this appeal arises for our consideration.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

the delay in filing the appeal under Section 37 of the Act can be

condoned, therefore, on the same analogy, the delay in filing

the petition under Section 34 of the Act should also be

condoned. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has

been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in

GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA (WATER RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT) REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

vs M/S BORSE BROTHERS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS

PVT. LTD. Civil Appeal No.995/2021 (@SLP (CIVIL)

No.665/2021) and connected matters.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

7. In SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs

UNION OF INDIA ((2019)2 SCC 455), it has been held by

NC: 2023:KHC:19467-DB MFA No. 1941 of 2022

Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the Court has no power to

condone the delay beyond the period of 120 days to entertain

any objections to the arbitral award under Section 34 of the

Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, objection under Section 34

of the Act was filed beyond 120 days. Therefore, the Court had

no power to condone the delay and the objections filed by the

appellant has rightly been dismissed as barred by limitation.

8. The fact that delay in filing the appeal under

Section 37 of the Act can be condoned is of no assistance to the

appellant as proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act expressly

provides that the Court can condone the delay of only 30 days

beyond the period of 90 days. In GOVERNMENT OF

MAHARASHTRA (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing

with the issue of condonation of delay in respect of appeals

filed under Section 37 of the Act is of no assistance to the

appellant in the facts of the case.

9. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any

ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Trial Court.

NC: 2023:KHC:19467-DB MFA No. 1941 of 2022

10. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BRN