Karnataka High Court
Brahmashree Narayana Ghuru Seva Sangha ... vs The Project Director on 15 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40866-DB
MFA No. 480 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.480 OF 2025 (AA)
BETWEEN:
BRAHMASHREE NARAYANA GHURU
SEVA SANGHA (R) [R.NO.191/94-95]
MANI VILLAGE,
P.O. MANI - 574253
BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS PRESIDET SURESHA
S/O. LATE. NARAYANA POOJARY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
SECRETARY,
RAMESH POOJARY.M.
S/O. LATE. ISHWARA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M SUDHAKAR PAI, ADV.)
Digitally signed by AND:
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA NHAI, PIU NH-75 (48)
HASSAN- B.C.ROAD DIVISION,
THARETHOTA, NEAR PUMPWELL (N.H.66),
MANGALURU - 575 005 (DK).
2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND
THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
(NHAI), N.H.75, HASSAN - B.C.ROAD DIVISION,
NO.HIG-64, DTDC COURIER OFFICE BUILDING,
1ST FLOOR, KHB COLONY, CHANNAPATNA,
OPPOSITE KSRTC NEW BUS STAND,
HASSAN-573201.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40866-DB
MFA No. 480 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER /
ARBITRATOR FOR N.H.A.I.,
D.K.DISTRICT,
MANGALURU - 575001(DK).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTHA M.S., ADV. AND
SRI VASANT KOPPAR, ADV. FOR R1 & 2
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R3)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(C) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 27.09.2024 PASSED IN AP.NO.55/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE
I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALURU,
ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
34 (2) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT R/W ORDER
7 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section
37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act]
impugning a judgment dated 27.09.2024 [impugned order] passed
by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Mangaluru [Commercial Court] in A.P.No.55/2022. The said order
is common order passed in A.P.No.43/2022 and A.P.No.55/2022.
NC: 2025:KHC:40866-DB
HC-KAR
The present appeal is accordingly confined to the impugned order
insofar as it relates to A.P.No.55/2022.
2. The parties had filed the said application before the Learned
Commercial Court under Section 34 of A&C Act impugning an
arbitral award dated 19.04.2022 passed by respondent No.3
[Deputy Commissioner] whereby the amount of compensation
awarded for acquisition of the appellant's land was enhanced
slightly.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant is not aggrieved by the
impugned order inasmuch as the relief sought - that is to set aside
the arbitral award dated 19.04.2022 - has been allowed. He
however submits that the learned Commercial Court has erred in
not remanding the matter to the learned arbitrator for consideration
of question.
4. The power of the Commercial Court under Section 34 of the
A&C Act is confined to considering whether to set aside the arbitral
award and it does not have power to remand the matter to the
Arbitral Tribunal. A plain reading of Section 34(1) of the A&C Act
indicates that recourse against an arbitral award is confined to
NC: 2025:KHC:40866-DB
HC-KAR
setting aside the award in accordance with Sub-Sections (2) and
(3) of Section 34 of the A&C Act. Now, Sub-Section (4) of Section
34 of the A&C Act empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to adjourn the
proceedings in order to give the Arbitral Tribunal an opportunity to
resume the arbitral proceedings or take such other action as would
eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award.
5. The appellant had not filed any application under Section
34(4) of the A&C Act and it is not the appellant's case that the
proceedings ought to have been adjourned by the Court to enable
the Arbitral Tribunal to remedy the award on which it is challenged
for sustaining the award.
6. In view of the above, we find no fault in the decision of the
learned Commercial Court in not remanding the matter to the
Arbitral Tribunal. We however, clarify that if the appellant is
otherwise entitled to re-initiate the arbitral proceedings in
accordance with law, the present proceeding would not preclude
the appellant from doing so, albeit in accordance with law.
7. Needless to say all rights and contentions of parties in this
regard are left open.
NC: 2025:KHC:40866-DB
HC-KAR
8. The appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
NC
CT:bms
