Court Rules Against Remand to Arbitrator, Directs Compensation Disbursement as Per Original Award
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has ruled against the remand of an arbitral award concerning the land acquisition for the National Highway-66 expansion, thereby upholding the original award issued by the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (CALA). The court, presided over by Mr. C. Jayachandran, J., directed the disbursement of compensation to the petitioner, Raghavan V.T, emphasizing the limitations under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding remanding arbitral awards.
The petitioner sought the release of compensation for his 0.0316 hectares of land acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (N.H.A.I). The initial award, based on a Basic Valuation Report (B.V.R), was contested by N.H.A.I, leading to a reduced valuation by the District Collector/Arbitrator. However, the petitioner successfully challenged this reduction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, resulting in the District Court setting aside the Arbitrator's award due to a lack of adequate opportunity for the petitioner to present his case.
The N.H.A.I’s subsequent appeal to the Kerala High Court was dismissed, with the court affirming that setting aside an award under Section 34(2)(a)(iii) does not inherently imply a remand to the Arbitrator. The court underscored that Section 34(4) allows for a limited remand only if requested by a party to cure specific procedural defects, a provision not invoked by either party in this case.
Citing precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in "Saisudhir Energy Ltd. v. NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd.", the court reiterated that it possesses no authority to remand or modify arbitral awards beyond addressing clerical or arithmetic errors. The ruling mandates the N.H.A.I to comply with the original CALA award unless a review is sought within 45 days, providing a finality to the prolonged dispute and ensuring the petitioner receives due compensation.
The court's decision highlights the judicial interpretation of arbitration laws, specifically the constraints on remanding awards, and emphasizes the importance of procedural adherence in arbitration proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Court cannot remit or remand arbitral Award except as provided under Section 34(4); setting aside arbitral Award under Section 34(2)(a)(iii) does not imply remand to Arbitrator.
Statutory provision(s): Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34(2)(a)(iii), 34(2A), 34(4)
Raghavan V.T v. Union of India, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2861372
