Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2021 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 1343 - SC - Indian LawsInterpretation of statute - Jurisdiction - power of a court to modify an award - whether the power of a court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [Arbitration Act] to set aside an award of an arbitrator would include the power to modify such an award? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, a notification designating a Special District Revenue Officer as the competent authority has been made. The amount determined by the aforesaid authority has then to be sent to an arbitrator, on application by either of the parties. What is important to remember is that the aforesaid arbitration is not a consensual process with both parties having a hand in appointing the arbitrator. As a matter of fact, the land owner has no say in the appointment of the arbitrator, who is to be appointed only by the acquiring authority, that is the Central Government. It is settled law that a Section 34 proceeding does not contain any challenge on the merits of the award. There can be no doubt that given the law laid down by this Court, Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 cannot be held to include within it a power to modify an award. In KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD. VERSUS G. HARISCHANDRA REDDY & ANR. [2007 (1) TMI 498 - SUPREME COURT], a judgment of this Court referred to in para 36, this Court reduced the rate of interest for the pre-arbitration period, pendente lite and future interest. It also referred to a suggestion that a certain amount be reduced from the awarded amount from Rs.1.47 crores to Rs.1 crore, which the learned counsel for the respondent therein fairly accepted. Obviously, these orders were also made under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and do not carry the matter very much further. From these judgments, to deduce, in para 39, that the judicial trend appears to favour an interpretation which would read into Section 34 a power to modify, revise or vary an award is wholly incorrect. The observation found in McDermott’s decision clearly bound the learned Single Judge and any decision to the contrary would be incorrect. Given the fact that in several similar cases, the NHAI has allowed similarly situated persons to receive compensation at a much higher rate than awarded, and given the law laid down in NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND. VERSUS VITHAL RAO AND OTHERS [1972 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT], the jurisdiction under Article 136 is declined to be exercised in favour of the appellants on the facts of these cases. Also, given the fact that most of the awards in these cases were made 7-10 years ago, it would not, at this distance in time, be fair to send back these cases for a de novo start before the very arbitrator or some other arbitrator not consensually appointed, but appointed by the Central Government. Appeal dismissed.
|