2024 (8) TMI 251 - HC - Indian Laws

Application of limitation for arbitration under the National Highway Act - whether the writ petition is maintainable, challenging a decision of the Arbitrator under the National Highway Act, 1956, in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? HELD THAT - It is clear from Section 2(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act that Section 43 will not apply to every arbitration under any other enactment. This means that if no limitation is prescribed under any other enactment, provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply to such arbitration under such enactment. In the light of the above, the Limitation Act will not apply for arbitration under the National Highway Act. The question of interfering with the writ petition challenging the decision has been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal No.1364/2024. This Court, in categorical terms, held that the remedy to challenge the decision of the Arbitrator, who is the District Collector, is by invoking the provisions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Thus it is clear that the writ petition is not maintainable against the decision of the Arbitrator, who happens to be a District Collector. The writ petition is not maintainable - the impugned judgment set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:

1. Application of limitation for arbitration under the National Highway Act.
2. Maintainability of a writ petition challenging a decision of the Arbitrator under the National Highway Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The judgment addressed the question of the application of limitation for arbitration under the National Highway Act. The Court noted that there was no specific prescription of limitation under the National Highway Act. However, reference was made to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which provides for limitation under Section 43, stating that the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to arbitrations. Nevertheless, the Court highlighted Section 2(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which clarifies that Section 43 does not apply to every arbitration under any other enactment if no limitation is prescribed under that enactment. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Limitation Act would not apply to arbitration under the National Highway Act due to the absence of specific limitation provisions.

Issue 2: The judgment also delved into the maintainability of a writ petition challenging a decision of the Arbitrator under the National Highway Act. It was observed that a Division Bench of the Court had set aside a previous judgment that allowed such writ petitions. The Court emphasized that the appropriate remedy to challenge the decision of the Arbitrator, who in this case was the District Collector, is by invoking the provisions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Consequently, the Court ruled that a writ petition is not maintainable against the decision of the Arbitrator and set aside the impugned judgment, allowing the writ appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the absence of limitation under the National Highway Act for arbitration proceedings and established that writ petitions challenging decisions of the Arbitrator under the Act are not maintainable, with the appropriate remedy being under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.