Bangalore District Court
National Highways Authority Of India vs Sri.H.C.Ramachandraiah on 12 November, 2019
1
A.S.No.67/2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY: (CCH.18)
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2019.
Present
Present SRI.DINESH HEGDE, B.A.,LL.B.,
XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
A.S.NO.67/2018
PLAINTIFFS/ 1. National Highways Authority of India
APPLICANTS : (Ministry of Road Transport & Highways),
Project Implementation Unit,
Sy.No.13, 14th KM,
Bangalore - Tumkur Road, Nagasandra,
Bangalore - 560 073.
Represented by
Smt.G.Vanishree
Manager Technical.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer and
Competent Authority,
National Highways Authority of India,
NH-7, No.678/3, Neerubhavi Kempanna
Layout, Hebbal, Bangalore - 560 024.
Represented by Smt.Usha Rani N.C.
SPL LAO.
(By Sri.Chandan., Advocate)
-VS-
2
A.S.No.67/2018
DEFENDANTS/ 1.Sri.H.C.Ramachandraiah
RESPONDENTS S/o. Channathimmaiah,
: Hoteppanapalya, Lakshmi Pura (Post),
Dasanapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk.
Bangalore - 562 123.
2. The Arbitrator & Special Deputy
Commissioner-1 Bangalore Urban
District, D C Office Building, Revenue
Complex, K G Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
(R.1 - By Sri.S.G.V., Advocate)
(R.2 - Exparte)
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) to set-aside the Arbitral Award dated 07-12-2017 and for such other reliefs.
2. The case of the plaintiff that, he seek to challenge the Arbitration Award dated 07-12-2017 passed by the The Arbitrator & Special Deputy Commissioner-1, Bangalore Urban District, the defendant No.2 in LAQ/ARB/NH-4/BNR/CR/7(A)/2009-10. The Government of India had through the Applicants acquired several lands for the purpose of widening of Bangalore-Nelamangala Road (K.M.10 to KM 29.5) vide preliminary Notification bearing 3 A.S.No.67/2018 No.S.O.2000 (E) dated 22.11.2006 and subsequently through final notification bearing No.S.O.1923(E) dated 13.11.2007. The above acquisition proceedings were carried out under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. In pursuance of these notifications the Applicant No.2 acquired several lands in Madavara Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore under Section 3A(1) & 3D(1) of National Highways Act, 1956. The Applicant No.2 after hearing objections filed by Respondent No.1 has determined compensation in LAQ/NH- 4/CA/CR/7/2008-09 dated 10-04-2008 and fixed the land compensation at Rupees Fifty Lakhs per acre for Dry/Wet/Garden Lands, Rs.250/- per square feet for converted land and Rs.225/- per square feet from Gramthana Land. In accordance with the above the Applicant No.2 has paid compensation to Respondent No.1 as indicated below -
Sy.No. Kind of land Extent in SFT Award amount
paid by
Applicant
106/2 NAK 644 & Rs.1,61,000/-
building Rs.2,70,400/-
4
A.S.No.67/2018
3. Respondent No.1 being not satisfied by the
compensation approached the 2nd respondent as provided under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Respondent No.1 had initiated the Arbitration Proceedings seeking to enhance the compensation awarded by 2nd respondent on the ground that the subject lands are nearer to Bangalore City and have both commercial and industrial value. Respondent No.1 also alleged that compensation determined by Applicant No.2 was very meager and hence sought for enhancement of compensation as under -
Request of Respondent Enhancement sought
No.1 Per acre of NAK & Gramatana
Agricultural land land per SFT
Prays for higher market Market value 50% additional
value compensation amount and 9%
interest
4. Upon receipt of notice, applicants appeared and filed their objections and objected to any enhancement in compensation on the ground that the compensation were fixed taking into consideration the sales statistics of the office of this relevant sub-registrar and also the guidance value of the 5 A.S.No.67/2018 registration department for the year 2006-2007 and hence, there was no requirement to enhance compensation as claimed by respondent No.1. The learned 2nd respondent after appreciating the material provided by applicants and after categorically recording in the impugned award that respondent No.2 has failed to produce any relevant document in support of their claim, for reasons best known to 2 nd respondent proceeded to enhance the compensation amount at three (3) times of the amount determined by applicant No.2, without providing any reasons for such enhancement being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Award, the plaintiff/applicants prefer the present suit/application on the following grounds among other grounds, which are without prejudice to one another and in the alternative, as under:
a. The impugned award is erroneous, patently bad in law and contrary to the settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts and the Arbitral Tribunal.
b. It is well settled law that the Arbitrator is bound by the doctrine of binding precedents, ratio decidendi and 6 A.S.No.67/2018 to pass the award in accordance with the law. The arbitrator is bound to take judicial notice of substantive laws and recognized principles and practice of civil laws and the laws laid by the competent courts. However, the Arbitral Tribunal in disregard to the settled and binding legal principles has passed the Impugned Award allowing the claim of respondent No.1 even without providing any reasons for doing so.
c. The impugned award is made in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 3G(7) of the National Highways Act, 1956. It is pertinent to note that, an Arbitrator while determining the amount under Section 3G(7) has to taken into consideration of the provisions contained in Section 3G(7). However, in the present case the learned respondent No.2 has completely negated the provisions of Section 3G(7) and has proceeded to enhance the compensation without providing any reason for such enhancement.
5. Section 3G(7) - The competent authority or the 7 A.S.No.67/2018 arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration
-
(a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A;
(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land;
(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings;
(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change.8
A.S.No.67/2018 d. The impugned award does not fall within the above provisions of law and the present case does not warrant invoking any of the above conditions to enable 2 nd respondent to enhance compensation amount. Hence on this ground alone the impugned award is liable to be set aside.
e. The impugned award is in conflict with the public policy of India, is in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian Law and is in conflict with the basic notions of morality and justice as provided under the provisions of section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence on this ground also the impugned award is liable to be set aside.
f. The impugned award is passed without even providing reasons for enhancing the compensation and without complying with the provisions of law.
9
A.S.No.67/2018 g. After the 2nd respondent having clearly observed failure of respondent No.1 to furnish any documents in support of his claim, could not have enhanced the compensation arbitrarily without any rhyme or reason. Hence the impugned award is bad under law and liable to be set aside.
6. The Award has been passed on 07-12-2017 and the same was received by the plaintiff/applicants on 08-01- 2018. Hence, as per the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 the plaintiff/applicant have filed the present application within the time prescribed under the Act. Set Aside the impugned Award dated 07-12- 2017 passed by 2nd respondent, confirm the compensation awarded by applicant No.2 in LAQ/NH-4/CA/CR/7/2008-09 dated 10-04-2008.
7. The defendant No.1 filed his objections stating that the award passed by 2nd respondent is a speaking and 10 A.S.No.67/2018 considerable award, after securing information from office of Sub Registrar in regard to the providing market value of the property acquired by the plaintiffs in respect of 1 st defendant land situated at Madavara Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. As such the suit filed by plaintiff before this Hon'ble court is unwarranted and untenable in the eye of law. Hence, the suit is filed by plaintiffs is deserved to be dismissed by this Hon'ble court. The plaintiffs have not approached this Hon'ble court with clean hands. There is no cause of action for the suit, the same is barred by law of limitation. The impugned award was passed by the 2nd defendant after issuance of notice to plaintiff and securing documents from both the sides, the same is one sided order, the alleged cause of action is imaginary, illusionary and make to believe created story, without any material documents. Though already after giving sufficient opportunity to plaintiffs by the 2 nd defendant, the impugned award was passed, as such the impugned award is a speaking and considerable award, the same is liable to be upheld by this Hon'ble court as enhancement of 3 times is just and proper.
11
A.S.No.67/2018
8. The averment made in para 3 of the plaint that, the present suit/application seek to challenge the Arbitration ward dated 07-12-2017 passed by Arbitrator and Special Deputy Commissioner-1, Bangalore Urban District, the defendant No.2 herein in LAQ/ARB/NH-4/BNR/CR/7(B) 2009-10 is true and admitted facts.
9. The averments made in para 4 of the application that, the Government of India had through the applicants acquired several lands for the purpose of widening of Bangalore- Nelamangala Road, (K.M.10 to KM 29.5) vide preliminary notification bearing No.S.O.2000(E) Dated 22.11.2006, and subsequently through final notification bearing No.SO.1923(E) dated 13.11.2007 is not with the knowledge of 1 st defendant, after the notice from plaintiffs, the knowledge of said notification comes to 1st defendant.
10. The averment made in para 5 of the application that, the above acquisition proceedings were carried out under the provisions of the National Highway Act 1956, and that, in 12 A.S.No.67/2018 pursuance of these notifications applicant No.2 acquired several lands in Madavara village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore under Section 3A(1) and 3D(1) of National Highway Act 1956 and that, the applicant No.2 after hearing objection filed respondent No.1 has determined compensation in LAQ/NH-4/CA/CR/7/2008-09 dated 10-04-2008 and fixed the land compensation at Rs.50 Lakhs per acre for dry/wet/garden lands Rs.250/- per square feet for converted land Rs.300-00 per square feet from Gramthana lands, and that, in accordance with the above the applicant No.2 has paid compensation to respondent No.1 as indicated below Sy.No.106/2, NAK, 644 square feet and building, award amount is Rs.1,61,000/- and Rs.2,70,400/- is true and admitted facts but till today no payment has made. In fact prevailing market value of said land is more than Rs.1 crore per acre, building cost is Rs.1600-00 per square feet.
11. The averment made in para 6 of the application that, respondent No.1 being not satisfied by the compensation approached the 2nd respondent is true and admitted facts. It is 13 A.S.No.67/2018 also true that, the 2nd respondent as provided under Section 3G(5) of the National Highway Act 1956. It is also true that, the respondent No.1 had initiated the arbitration proceedings seeking to enhance the compensation awarded by 2 nd respondent on the ground that, the subject lands are nearer to Bangalore City and have both commercial and industrial value, and that, respondent No.2 also alleged that, compensation determined by applicant No.2 was very meager and hence sought for enhancement of compensation as hereunder is also true and admitted facts. And pray for higher market value compensation 50% additional amount and 9% interest. Which is a reasonable and just with the plaintiffs entitle to pay for the acquisition of 1 st defendant land. Which is on the National High way adjacent to Peenya Industrial area near Jindal Factory. And above that, Nice road is passing.
12. The averment made in para 7 of the application that, upon receipt of notice, applicants appeared and filed their objections and objected to any enhancement in compensation on the ground that, the compensation were fixed taking into 14 A.S.No.67/2018 consideration the sales statistics of the offence of the relevant sub registrar and that, the guidance value of the registration department for the year 2006-07 and that, there was no requirement to enhance compensation as claimed by respondent No.1 is against material documents available on record and not supported with any documentary evidence. As such there is no truth in the objections filed by the applicants before the 2 nd respondent.
13. The averment made in para 8 of the plaint that, the 2 nd respondent after appreciating the material provided by applicants and after categorically recording in the impugned award that, the respondent No.2 has failed to produce any relevant documents in support of their claim, for reasons best known to 2 nd respondent proceeded to enhance the compensation amount at three times of the amount determined by applicant No.2 is true and admitted facts, but it is false to allege that, without providing any reasons for such enhancement. The defendant No.1 is herewith denied the same as absolutely false. The plaintiff are not the aggrieved 15 A.S.No.67/2018 party, the 2nd respondent has awarded very meager award amount, in that also if reduce it will lead to irreparable loss injustice and deprived of right for the acquisition of the property belongs to 1st defendant to the plaintiff. Hence the impugned award passed by 2nd defendant is liable to be upheld by this Hon'ble court and dismiss the above suit with exemplary costs. Plaintiffs are not the aggrieved parties there is no material placed before this Hon'ble court to dissatisfied the award passed by 2 nd defendant, which is not erroneous, nor bad in law nor contrary to settled legal principles. Hence the suit filed by the plaintiff is deserved to be dismissed.
14. The grounds urged by the plaintiffs are all imaginary, baseless not applicable to the case of 1 st defendant, to whom they are paying only meager amount, where as market value up to Rs.1 crore. Hence the suit filed by plaintiff is unwarranted and untenable in the eye of law, the provision of National Highway Act quoted by the plaintiff are not applicable to the case of this defendant and plaintiffs. Section 3 G(7) A to D are not coming in 16 A.S.No.67/2018 the ambit of 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant keeping in mind all the provisions of law has passed the impugned award which is speaking and considerable award, the plaintiffs have not made any cogent grounds before this Hon'ble court for interference, hence the suit filed by plaintiff is a formal suit, devoid of merits and deserved to be dismissed.
15. Based on the above rival contentions, the following points arise for determination:-
1) Whether the arbitral award dated 07-12-2017 passed by the Arbitration Tribunal is to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996?
2) What Award?
16. Both the parties have not adduced any evidence.
17. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
18. My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 :- In the Negative;
Point No.2 : - As per the final order for the following: 17
A.S.No.67/2018 REASONS
19. Point No.1 :- The plaintiff has filed the above application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (herein after referred as the "Act"), on various grounds to set-aside the award dated 07-12-2017 passed by the learned Arbitrator and Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District.
20. Admittedly, the learned Arbitrator passed an Award on 07-12-2017 enhanced the compensation at three times. The plaintiff preferred this petition under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 on 08-03-2018. Under Section 34 (3) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, an application for setting aside has to be made within 3 months from the date on which the party making the application had received the Arbitral Award. In the petition in para No.12, the plaintiff has categorically stated he received the Award on 08-01- 2018. This fact is not denied by the respondents. Hence, this petition is within the period of 3 months and hence, maintainable.
18
A.S.No.67/2018
21. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs have acquired the disputed land for the purpose of widening of Bengaluru- Nelamangala Road vide preliminary notification bearing SO 2000(E) dated 22-11-2006 and subsequently through final notification No.SO1923(E) dated 13-11-2007. It is also not in dispute the acquisition of land were carried out under the provisions of National Highways Act 1956. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff No.2 after hearing both the parties has determined the compensation in LAQ/NH/4/CA/CR/7/2008-09 dated 10-04- 2008 and fixed the compensation at Rs.250/- per sq.feet for converted a land and Rs.225/- per sq.feet for Gramatana Land.
22. It is also not in dispute that the defendant No.1 being not satisfied the compensation approached the second respondent as provide under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act 1956. It is also admitted fact, the respondent No.1 had initiated the Arbitration proceedings seeking to enhance the compensation awarded by the second petitioner on the ground that subject land are near to Bangalore City and have both 19 A.S.No.67/2018 commercial and industrial value. Upon receipt of notice petitioners appeared before the learned Aribtrator and filed objection for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation were fixed is just and proper and no requirement to enhance compensation.
23. That the respondent No.2 being learned Arbitrator has passed the impugned order dated 07-12-2017 holding that compensation amount has been disbursed to the landlords during the year 2009-2010 and possession of the land have been taken on different dates. The Arbitrator has further held that the land acquired would have been commercially exploited and as good commercial value. The learned Arbitrator further held that the present market value of these lands are also increasing steadily and the petitioner sought for enhancing the land compensation abnormally, but he has not produced the documents to that effect. The learned Arbitrator has further held that, "In view of the above mentioned reasons and keeping the above facts into consideration I Smt.Vinoth Priya R. IAS, Special 20 A.S.No.67/2018 Deputy Commissioner one and Arbitrator under the powers rested with me under Section 2G(5) of NH Act 1956 determine the enhanced compensation amount at 3 times as per the amount already paid by the SLAO and CA and further ordered to deduct the compensation amount paid by the enhanced amount. The Respondent No.2 is directed to calculate the amount fixed as above and pay to the applicant with an interest at 9% p.a under Section 3H(5) of NH Act 1956 from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of actual deposit by NHAI after deducting the amount already paid. The respondent No.1 is directed to release the amount to the respondent No.2 for disbursement of the amount to the applicant after verifying the documents".
24. This order of the learned Arbitrator is challenged by the plaintiffs with various grounds averred in the plaint/petition. The learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has relied upon a decision reported in 2016 (2) AKR 232 between M/s Karnataka Soaps and Detergent Ltd., Bengaluru Vs. M/s Olivia Impex Pvt. 21
A.S.No.67/2018 Ltd. Mumbai and anther, wherein it was held that, "A duty is caste on the trial court to assign proper reasons for coming a particular conclusion. It does not have the right to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, but if it declines to interferes the award passed by the arbitrator on the grounds that the reasons assigned by the learned Arbitrator are valid and legal, then it has to say so in the context of the pleadings, evidence and the pleadings on record".
25. Under Section 34 of the The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, an application against the Arbitral Award for setting a side may be made only by an supplication for setting aside such award in accordance with Sub Section 2 and Sub Section 3.
"Application for setting aside Arbitral Award -
(1) Recourse to a Court against an Arbitral Award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-Section (2) and sub-section (3).
(2) An Arbitral Award may be set aside by the Court only if-22
A.S.No.67/2018
(a) the party making the application furnishes proof that -
i) a party was under some incapacity, or
ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or
iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or
iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration:
Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or
v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or failing such 23 A.S.No.67/2018 agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or
(b) the Court finds that -
(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or
(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.
Explanation- Without prejudice to the generality of sub-clause (ii) it is hereby declared, for the avoidance of any doubt, that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India if the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81.
(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:
Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter. (4) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Court may, where it is appropriate and it is so 24 A.S.No.67/2018 requested by a party, adjourn the proceedings for a period of time determined by it in order to give the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of arbitral tribunal will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award".
Therefore, it is for the plaintiffs to make out proper grounds to set aside the Arbitral Award.
26. Under Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act 1956 the compensation may be determined-
"(1) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land.
(2) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. 25
A.S.No.67/2018 (3) Such notice shall state that particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3-C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land.
(4) Of the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.
(5) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act.
(6) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration -
(a) The market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3-A;
(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from 26 A.S.No.67/2018 other land;
(c) the damage, if any sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings;
(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change".
27. On perusal of the Award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Plaintiff No.2, it is clear that he has not taken into consideration of the market value on the date of application of the notification the damages caused to the respondent No.1 and how the acquisition injuriously affected his earnings. It is not forthcoming that due to the acquisition of the land the person interested to compel to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses etc.
28. By considering the above facts, the learned Arbitrator has enhanced compensation amount at 3 times. Under Section 27 A.S.No.67/2018 3H(5) of the National Highways Act 1956 where the amount determined under Section 3G by the Arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the learned Arbitrator may award interest at 9% p.a. on such excess amount from date of taking possession under Section 3D till the date of actual deposit thereof. Therefore, it is clear that the learned Arbitrator apart from enhancing the compensation amount has also awarded interest @9% in accordance with law.
29. In every land acquisition the impact of land acquisition on the owner of the land and he will be the looser. When the state is unable to provide alternative land to the land looser, the duty caste upon the state to provide proper compensation. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 was not provided with alternative land. It is not in dispute the acquired land is very near to the Metropolitan City of Bengaluru. The market value of the land means the value of the land determined.
30. Under Section 27 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and 28 A.S.No.67/2018 Resettlement Act 2013 the collector having determined the market value of the land to be acquired shall calculate the total amount of compensation to be paid to the land owner whose land has been acquired by including all assets attached to the land.
31. Therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to make out the impugned Award is erroneous. The plaintiffs have failed to make out the grounds that award is in contravention of Section 3G(7) of the land National Highways Act 1956. The impugned order fall within the provisions Section 3G(7) of the National Highways Act 1956. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be termed as a conflict with Public Policy of India under Section 34 (2), b (ii) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Even though, the respondent No.2 has not produced documents in support of his claim, the learned Arbitrator is not barred from looking into the available document on record. Under these circumstances,
32. For the above reasons, the plaintiffs have not made out 29 A.S.No.67/2018 any grounds to set aside the Arbitration award dated 07-12-2017 passed by the learned Arbitrator. Hence, I answer above point in the Negative.
33. Point No.2 :- For the above reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs under Section
34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is dismissed.
The Arbitration Award dated 07-12-2017 passed by the Arbitrator is hereby confirmed.
There is no order as to cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by me in computer and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of November, 2019).
(Dinesh Hegde) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
30
A.S.No.67/2018 12/11/2019 P - Chandan R.1 - SGV R.2 - Exparte For Judgment Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate detailed judgment with the following operative portion:-
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is dismissed.
The Arbitration Award dated 07-12-2017 passed by the Arbitrator is hereby confirmed.
There is no order as to cost.
(Dinesh Hegde) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, B'LORE CITY.
31 A.S.No.67/2018