Ibrahim S/O Yasin Deceased Through Lrs. ... vs Land Acquisition Officer And Sub ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2425 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ibrahim S/O Yasin Deceased Through Lrs. ... vs Land Acquisition Officer And Sub ... on 6 January, 2025

Author: Subodh Abhyankar

Bench: Subodh Abhyankar

                                                                     1




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                              AA No. 57 of 2024
                                      (GANPAT Vs LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND SUB DIVISION OFFICER AND OTHERS )
                               AA/60/2024, AA/61/2024, AA/63/2024, AA/64/2024, AA/65/2024, AA/66/2024, AA/67/2024,
                                                 AA/68/2024, AA/69/2024, AA/70/2024, AA/84/2024
                          Dated : 06-01-2025
                               Shri Akash Sharma - Advocate for the appellant(s).
                                   Shri Raghav Shrivastava- G.A. for the State.
                                   Shri Mohan Sausarkar- Advocate for the respondent No.2, through

V.C.

1. Heard on I.A. Nos.8100/2024, 8097/2024, 8101/2024, 8110/2024, 8102/2024, 8098/2024, 8090/2024, 8118/2024, 8094/2024, 8112/2024, 8093/2024 and 8092/2024, which are the applications filed by the respondent No.2, National Highway Authority of India in the aforesaid appeals, as mentioned in the cause-title, for recall/modification of the order passed by this Court on 16.07.2024.

2. This order shall govern the disposal of the aforesaid interlocutory applications, regard being had to the similarity of the issue involved.

3. Vide the aforesaid order, this Court has allowed the appeal filed by the appellant(s) under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996'), by holding that the application filed by the appellant(s) under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was within limitation, and the matter has been remanded back to the District Court for its decision on merits.

4. Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, National Highway Authority of India, has vehemently submitted before this Court that while passing the aforesaid order, this Court has not considered the fact that the applicant had the knowledge of the award, and Section 31(5) of the Act of 1996 does not provide that the copy of the award be delivered to the appellant in person and thus, mere knowledge of the appellant is sufficient to hold that the period of limitation has started to run, and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was within limitation. Shri Sausarkar has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel (dead), Through Legal Representatives Vs Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel and Others, reported as AIR 2018 SC 1627, para 20.

5. The prayer is opposed by Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant(s) and it is submitted that this Court has already taken into account all the aspects of the matter in the order under review and thus, no case for interference is made out.

6. Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, including the order passed by this Court on 16.07.2024, this Court finds that the very issue involved in the appeal was that of limitation, and this Court has considered all the objections raised by the respondents and has come to a conclusion that the application filed by the appellants who were the rustic villagers was within limitation as the copy of the award was served on them individually, and in such circumstances, there is no error on the face of record, which may call for recall or modification of the order.

7. So far as the decision in the case of Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel (Supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable on facts, as in the

aforesaid case, the copy of the arbitral award was not served individually to some of the parties as they were also represented by the family head/common Power of Attorney holder, who received the award on their behalf, and in such circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that the individual service of copy of award was not necessary to such parties. On the other hand, in para 16 of the said decision, the Supreme Court has also quoted with approval, its earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors, reported as (2005) 4 SCC 239, on which decision this Court has also relied upon in para 11 of the order dated 16.07.2024, the modification of which is sought. Additionally, in the case of Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel (Supra), the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. ARK Builders (P) Ltd, reported as (2011) 4 SCC 616 has also been quoted. The relevant paras 16 and 17 of Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel (Supra) read as under:-

"16. In Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors [Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, (2005) 4 SCC 239] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, in respect to the issue of limitation for filing application under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside the arbitral award, held that the period of limitation would commence only after a valid delivery of an arbitral award takes place under Section 31(5) of the Act. In para 8, this Court held as under : (SCC p. 243, para 8)

"8. The delivery of an arbitral award under sub-section (5) of Section 31 is not a matter of mere formality. It is a matter of substance. It is only after the stage under Section 31 has passed that the stage of termination of arbitral proceedings within the meaning of Section 32 of the Act arises. The delivery of arbitral award to the party, to be effective, has to be "received" by the party. This delivery by the Arbitral Tribunal and receipt by the party of the award sets in motion several periods of limitation such as an application for correction and interpretation of an award within 30 days under Section 33(1), an application for making an additional award under Section 33(4) and an application for setting aside an award under Section 34(3) and so on. As this delivery of the copy of award has the effect of conferring certain rights on the party as also bringing to an end the right to exercise those rights on expiry of the prescribed period of limitation

which would be calculated from that date, the delivery of the copy of award by the Tribunal and the receipt thereof by each party constitutes an important stage in the arbitral proceedings."

17. In State of Maharashtra v. ARK Builders (P) Ltd. [State of Maharashtra v. ARK Builders (P) Ltd., (2011) 4 SCC 616 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 413] , while following the judgment in Tecco Trichy Engineers case [Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, (2005) 4 SCC 239] , held that the expression "... party making that application had received the arbitral award..." cannot be read in isolation and it must be understood that Section 31(5) of the Act requires a signed copy of the award to be delivered to each party. By cumulative reading of Section 34(3) and Section 31(5) of the Act, it is clear that the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act would commence only from the date of signed copy of the award delivered to the party making the application for setting it aside."

(Emphasis Supplied)

8. In view of the same, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the applications being devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Bahar