- The Supreme Court noted that a Court cannot amend the arbitrator's award under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
- The bench made up of Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna stated that the option would be to revoke the judgement and remand the case.
- The High Court of Karnatak's decision upholding the awards made by the Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator of National Highway 275 (land acquisition) and the Deputy Commissioner-1 and Arbitrator of Bengaluru Urban District was the subject of appeals brought by the National Highways Authority of India ('NHAI').
- By the aforementioned rulings, the respective Arbitrators increased the compensation from the Special Land Acquisition Officer's original calculations of Rs. 2026 per square metre and Rs. 17,200 per square metre to Rs. 15,400 per square metre and Rs. 25,800 respectively.
- One of the arguments made in this appeal was that since the Arbitrator, in recalculating the compensation, took into account the guideline value as provided under the notification dated 28.03.2016 issued by the Department of Stamps and Registration, which is notably the market value fixed on a date after the acquisition notification dated 01.02.2016, the award made by the Arbitrator is ex-facie incorrect and amounts to patent illegality.
- Two more points were brought up in this appeal, including (1) whether the Arbitrator gave the market value given as a guideline value under the notification dated 01.02.2016 proper consideration.
- (2) Whether the guideline value determined for "City Greens" and "Zunadu" was justified and as to whether the learned Arbitrator has provided sufficient reasons to place such reliance, as the failure to assign reasons or engage in discussion would also amount to patent illegality and be in violation of Section 31(3) of the Act, 1996.
- On the first point, the court decided that the Arbitrator had not clearly violated any laws by relying on the guideline value notice dated 28.03.2016 to determine the market value of the property acquired under the preliminary notification dated 01.02.2016.
- Regarding the other arguments, the bench noted that the Arbitrator had not provided sufficient justification for his decision to unanimously adopt the value of Rs. 15,400 per square metre set in respect of lands in a pattern that was specifically included in the notification.
- The court further noted that the arbitrator had not provided sufficient justification, which to that extent would clearly point to a violation of Sections 28(2) and 31(3) of the Act of 1996 in the award made by the expert arbitrator.
- As a result, the bench granted the appeal.
"Loved reading this piece by Twinkle Madaan?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
