- The bench: N. V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantangoudar, Ajay Rastogi
- The Defendant/ Appellant: National Highway Authority of India
- The Plaintiff/ Respondent: Sayedabad Tea Estate and others.
Issue-
Whether application filled under Section 11 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator is maintainable under the Section 3(G) of the National Highway Act, 1956?
The contentions-
Defendant- The appointment of arbitrator lies under Section 3(G) of National Highways Act, 1956 which is an exclusive power vested in the central government. The provisions of the NH Act will have an overriding effect over Arbitration Act in the matters of land compensation as it is a special enactment.
Plaintiff- The 5.08 acres of land was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India in Darjeeling for the purpose of constructing highways. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the compensation determined by the authority which is why the plaintiff filled an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of NH Act. The plaintiff alleged the central government for not responding to the request and filled an application to the chief justice invoking the Section 11 (9) of the Arbitration Act.
Final Judgement-
The Calcutta high court held that the right of the central government for appointing an Arbitrator stands forfeited as the plaintiff invoked his power under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. The plaintiff requested for a review where the high court was brought to the notice that the power of appointment of arbitrator is solely vested in the central government and the application under Section 11 is not maintainable. Therefore, the arbitrator appointed by the Calcutta high court was recused and the court held that the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is not maintainable as the special laws prevail over general law.
