TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court erred in directing NHAI to deposit compensation under Article 226; Supreme Court emphasizes alternative remedies.</h1> The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in directing NHAI to deposit compensation under Article 226, emphasizing the use of alternative remedies ... Execution of the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court - Direction to appellant – NHAI to deposit the entire compensation amount as awarded by the learned Arbitrator - HELD THAT:- Apart from the fact that the award dated 12.06.2018 has been challenged by the NHAI by initiating proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act which are reported to be pending, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the reliefs to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, when the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court is to be executed by initiating an execution proceeding before the concerned Executing Court. But, by passing the impugned order/directions the High Court has virtually converted itself into Executing Court. Therefore, once the original writ petitioner was having an efficacious, alternative remedy to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, by initiating an appropriate execution proceeding before the competent Executing Court, the High Court ought to have relegated the original writ petitioners to avail the said remedy instead of entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was filed to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court. If the High Courts convert itself to the Executing Court and entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court, the High Courts would be flooded with the writ petitions to execute awards passed by the learned Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitral Court. The NHAI shall deposit 50 per cent of the compensation amount, as awarded by the Arbitral Court, with the Executing Court within a period of four weeks. The said amount shall be released to the land owners unconditionally - Application disposed off. Issues:1. High Court directing NHAI to deposit compensation amount.2. NHAI challenging the award by the Arbitrator.3. Entertaining writ petition under Article 226 for execution of award.4. Applicability of alternative remedy for executing the award.5. Discretion of High Court in converting itself into an Executing Court.6. Disposal of the present appeal by the Supreme Court.Analysis:1. The High Court directed NHAI to deposit the entire compensation amount awarded by the Arbitrator for land acquisition. NHAI, feeling aggrieved, appealed against this order, arguing that the High Court erred in exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. NHAI challenged the enhanced compensation amount awarded by the Arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, as there was no stay on the award, the landowners filed a writ petition seeking NHAI to deposit the amount, leading to the current appeal.3. NHAI contended that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 for executing the award, as the landowners had the statutory remedy of executing the award through the Executing Court.4. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of utilizing the alternative remedy available for executing the award rather than seeking relief under Article 226. The Court noted that entertaining such writ petitions would burden the High Courts with execution matters.5. The Supreme Court disapproved of High Courts acting as Executing Courts and directed NHAI to deposit 50% of the compensation amount with the Executing Court within four weeks. The remaining balance was to be deposited after determination under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.6. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, modifying the High Court's order and providing specific directions for the deposit and release of the compensation amount, emphasizing the timely resolution of the pending proceedings.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, highlighting the arguments presented by NHAI and the landowners, along with the Supreme Court's final decision and directions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
