Writ Petition Cannot Be Construed As “Earlier Application” U/S 42 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has observed that a writ petition cannot be construed as an "earlier application" under Section 42 of the Arbitration Act to decide jurisdiction as the very nature of a writ petition is to challenge an administrative action or a legal decision, not to initiate arbitration proceedings.Section 42 specifically refers to an "application made in a Court with respect to an arbitration agreement," which implies an initial application to commence or regulate arbitration, rather than a challenge to an existing decision. Facts In the year 2006, the Central Government issued notification dated 28.07.2006 thereby seeking to acquire a stretch of land from Baghpat Division to Baghpat District, Uttar Pradesh under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (“NH Act”). While some portion of land was compulsorily acquired, qua the other portion, possession was taken without acquisition vide Notification dated 08.02.2007. Aggrieved by the non-receipt of compensation, the landowners including the Petitioners approached this Court by way of a writ petition praying for quashing of these notifications as well as for directions to pay land compensation/additional land compensation amongst other ancillary reliefs. Consequent to the order in the aforementioned writ petition, the Petitioners received original land compensation as per the market value adjudged in the year 2006 when Section 3A notification was issued vide order dated 27.5.2019 passed by District Collector, Bhagpat, U.P. Unsatisfied with the quantum of compensation received, the Petitioners and other landowners filed proceedings in form of Suit No. 00747 of 2019 before District Collector-Division Meerut under Section 3G(5) and 3G(7) of the National Highway Act, 1956 seeking enhanced compensation. Vide the impugned Judgement dated 16.10.2020, the suit was dismissed (“Award”) By way of present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”), the Petitioners seek to challenge the Award dated 16.10.2020, passed by the District Collector, Division Meerut, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. Contentions At the outset, the Respondents took a preliminary objection that this Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the present petition filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the subject matter of the present proceedings was the land of the Petitioner which was located in District-Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. It was further submitted that the original land compensation was issued by District Collector, Bhagpat,U.P. and the arbitral proceedings under Section 3G(7) of the NHAI Act vide which the enhancement of compensation was sought took place in Baghpat. Thus, this Court would not be the appropriate forum to challenge the impugned Award. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the objections put forth by the Respondents were meritless. It was submitted that the land had been acquired by the Central Government and Respondent No. 1 has its headquarters located in Delhi. It was further submitted that even earlier, the Petitioners had approached this Court with respect to the same acquisition proceedings vide Writ Petition No. 11920/2016 and this Court had also been pleased to entertain the same and even granted relief. It was submitted that factum of the earlier petition being filed would attract Section 42 of the A&C Act and consequently, this Court alone would have jurisdiction to entertain this petition. To this, the counsel for the Respondent submitted that according to the plain language of Section 42, the prior writ petition could not be deemed to be an application under made under Part I of the A&C Act. Observations The Court observed that in view of Section 2, A&C Act, the relevant Court would be the one having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit. The Court observed that in view of the factual matrix, there was nothing to show that this Court had the territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The impugned arbitral award dated 16.10.2020 under Section 3G(5) and 3G(6), NHAI Act was rendered in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, all proceedings in arbitration were also conducted in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh and even the land that was the subject matter of the impugned arbitral award is situated in Uttar Pradesh. The Court noted that the primary ground of Petitioner's claim of jurisdiction in the present petition was the invocation of Section 42, A&C Act. The Petitioner had asserted that the previously filed writ petition which was entertained by this Court should be considered as an earlier application within the meaning of Section 42, A&C Act. The Court explained that in the present case, the previous proceedings were...

Writ Petition Cannot Be Construed As “Earlier Application” U/S 42 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act: Delhi High Court

Arpita Pande

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Arpita Pande

Writ Petition Cannot Be Construed As “Earlier Application” U/S 42 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act: Delhi High Court

Arpita Pande

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Arpita Pande

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers