Legal- Assignment
Answer 1
a.
b. The Two cases are
I.
The Project Director, National Highways No. 45 E and 220 vs. M. Hakeem and Anr.,
Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) NO.13020 OF 2020
II.
Kinnari Mullick vs Ghanshyam Das Damani, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5172 OF 2017
c. The project Director, National Highways No. 45 E and 220 vs. M. Hakeem and Anr
The case's merits include notifications issued under the National Highways Act of 1956, which
include awards made by the Special District Revenue Officer. The disagreement arose because the
judgments were based on the 'guideline value' of the properties sought to be purchased rather than
on sale documents of identical holdings, resulting in 'abysmally' low compensation for such lands.
Despite the inadequate compensation, the arbitrator, who was appointed by the government,
upheld the decision. With regard to the aforementioned issue, the Supreme Court determined that
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act only permitted for limited grounds for setting aside an arbitral
judgement under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 34.
The court emphasized that this clause is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, and that the
legislative aim behind it is to maintain the principle of judicial minimization in the arbitral
procedure.
Kinnari Mullick vs Ghanshyam Das Damani
The arbitral tribunal issued an interim award on August 27, 2010 and a final award on June 18,
2013, in the abovementioned case, and the aggrieved party challenged the award in the High Court
of Calcutta.
The learned sole Judge found that the impugned award lacked any explanation for its judgement,
and therefore the award was set aside, leaving the parties free to pursue their remedies in line with
the law. The Respondent filed an appeal with the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta
against the aforementioned order.
The Division Bench upheld the learned single judge's conclusions and ordered the arbitral panel
to submit reasons in support of its ruling in accordance with the law, without being influenced by
the set aside award. When considering the appeal from the Division Bench's decision, the Supreme
Court looked at the legal position established by the Supreme Court in McDermott International
Inc. SC settled the law that a Section 34 court cannot modify the arbitral award, but merely set
aside the award leaving parties to commence fresh arbitration proceedings to settle their disputes.
Answer 2
Summary

The appellants owned an extent of land admeasuring 61 kanals and 17 marlas, bearing
Khewat Khatauni.

155/27 in Village Verka, Tehsil and District Amritsar. Of this, 42 kanals and 19 marlas
were notified for acquisition for the widening and four-laning of the Pathankot-Amritsar
National Highway (NH) No.15, from Km. 97.700 to Km. 102.860, running through three
villages in District Amritsar. Notification was issued.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar, was nominated as the Competent Authoritycum-Land Acquisition Collector (for brevity, 'the CALA') under Section 3 (a) of the Act
of 1956 and he determined the compensation payable for the acquired lands in Village
Verka, vide Award No.18 dated 31.05.2010. Thereunder, he categorized the acquired lands
under 9 heads - Category A to Category I.

Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the CALA, the appellants moved an
application under Section 3 G(5) of the Act of 1956. Therein, they asserted that their land
was not agricultural and that it was industrial and commercial in nature. They claimed that
it had been purchased by them for expansion of the industrial unit and that it was an
industrial plot. They asserted that all relevant paper work for the purpose of raising
constructions over the land in question had already been done but installation of the
industry could not be carried out on account of the acquisition.

However, by Arbitral Award dated 15.11.2011, the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar,
rejected their pleas.

Aggrieved by the aforestated nil Award dated 15.11.2011, the appellants filed Arbitration
Case No.9 of 2012 before the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar.

Only one witness was examined by the appellants before the learned Additional District
Judge, Amritsar, viz., Gian Chand, the husband of Renu Mehra, the first appellant herein.

Gian Chand stated that the subject land was purchased in the year 2003. He admitted that
he had not brought the original sale deeds with him or placed the same on record. He
claimed that he did not remember the consideration for which the sale deeds were gotten
executed by him. He admitted that the CALA had visited the spot prior to fixation of the
compensation amount and that compensation was awarded at commercial valuation.

Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dismissed the objections raised by the appellants under
Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

The learned Judge observed that the Arbitrator had considered all the pleas/objections
raised and had given reasons for his decision. He noted that law did not require the
Arbitrator to frame issues or write a judgment on par with a Court of law and observed that
that once intelligible reasons were given in support of the conclusions, the sufficiency of
such reasons could not be gone into.

The court said the appellants never produced any documentary evidence in proof of their
tall claim that their land would fetch not less than 35,000/- per square yard in the open
market. Without discharging the burden that rested upon them, the appellants cannot be
permitted to baldly claim that their land has been grossly undervalued.

The court also said that, the appellants' contention that the order under appeal is cryptic
does not merit acceptance and requires mention only to be rejected. The technical grounds
urged by the appellants were appropriately dealt with by the learned Additional District
Judge, Amritsar. Their objection that the arbitration proceedings stood vitiated as their
consent was not obtained beseeched rejection, as Section 3 G(5) of the Act of 1996 makes
it clear that the Arbitrator is to be appointed by the Central Government alone and by way
of mutual consent.