Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Aggrieved by the said award, NHAI filed Arbitration Suit No.1/2008 before the Principal District Court, Haveri praying to set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 01.04.2008 and claimant-plaintiff has filed Arbitration Suit No.2/2008 for enhancement of compensation amount. The matter was heard by the learned Principal District Judge, Haveri and set aside the said award passed on 01.04.2008 and remanded the matter to the Arbitrator with certain observations and to reconsider the award, in accordance with law. Thereafter, Arbitrator issued notice to both the parties and re-heard the matter; and passed an order dated 26.09.2012 assessing the amount of compensation to be payable to Respondent No.1. The same was challenged by appellant herein before the Principal District Court, Haveri in Arbitration Suit No.1 of 2013.

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned Advocate for appellant and Respondent No.1. The learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that Respondent No.1 had not commenced the business in the property, which was acquired for expansion of National Highway. This fact was not at all considered by the Arbitrator as well as the learned Principal District Judge, Haveri, in the impugned order. The compensation amount was assessed as per the whims and fancies of Arbitrator and it was confirmed by the learned Principal District Judge, Haveri. Without there being any business conducted by Respondent No.1, loss of business income was assessed by the Arbitrator on the basis of report given by some third party. Therefore, finding of the Arbitrator was erroneous. When the matter was challenged before the learned Principal District Judge, Haveri, the learned Principal District Judge has also not properly appreciated the said evidence and erroneously held that award passed by the Arbitrator was just and proper. Therefore, prayed to set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator by allowing this appeal.

6. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 has vehemently contended that under Section 34 of the A & C Act, 1996, the jurisdiction of the Court is very limited. It cannot sit as Appellate Court and re-appreciate the evidence. The learned Principal District Judge, Haveri, under Section 34 of the A & C Act has to consider the Award passed by the Arbitrator within framework of Section 34 of the A & C Act. The learned Principal District Judge, Haveri in the impugned judgment has referred to Section 34 of the A & C Act, 1996 and within the framework of Section 34 of the A & C Act, 1996 has dismissed A.S.No.1 of 2013, which does not call for interference by this Court under Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, prayed to confirm the same. However, prayed to allow M.F.A.No.103185 of 2015 by enhancing compensation.

14. As already discussed in the above paragraphs under Section 34 of the A & C Act 1996, the Court can interfere in the findings of the Arbitrator only on the ground mentioned under Section 34 of the A & C Act, 1996 and not on any other ground. Under Section 34 of the A & C Act, 1996, the learned Principal District Judge, Haveri who heard the matter, was not sitting as an Appellate Judge. Under Section 34 of the A & C Act, he has no jurisdiction to re-consider and re-appreciate the pleadings and evidence of the parties and give different findings. On the contrary, the learned Principal District Judge, Haveri under Section 34 of the A & C Act, has to consider whether interference in the findings of the Arbitrator was required as provided under Section 34 of the A & C Act. The learned Principal District Judge, Haveri in the impugned judgment had discussed the facts and jurisdiction of the District Court in re-appreciating the materials on record and rightly dismissed the suit A.S.No.1/2013 and it does not call for any interference.