Limitation and writ remedy in National Highways arbitration: general limitation law does not apply, and Article 226 relief is barred.

The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to arbitration under the National Highways Act, 1956 because that special enactment provides for arbitration under Section 3G(5) without prescribing a limitation period, and Sections 41 and 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 do not extend the general limitation law where the special statute occupies the field differently. A writ petition under Article 226 is also not maintainable against the arbitrator's decision because the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a specific statutory challenge under Section 34. The impugned judgment was therefore set aside and the appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to arbitration under the National Highways Act, 1956; and (ii) whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a decision of the Arbitrator appointed under the National Highways Act, 1956.

Issue (i): whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to arbitration under the National Highways Act, 1956.

Analysis: Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides for determination of compensation by an arbitrator where the amount fixed by the competent authority is not acceptable, but the enactment does not prescribe any period of limitation for invoking arbitration. Although Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitrations, Section 2(4) of that Act makes Sections 41 and 43 inapplicable to arbitrations under another enactment where the special enactment is inconsistent or occupies the field differently. In the absence of a limitation prescription in the special enactment, the general limitation provision does not apply.

Conclusion: The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to arbitration under the National Highways Act, 1956.

Issue (ii): whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a decision of the Arbitrator appointed under the National Highways Act, 1956.

Analysis: The remedy against the arbitral decision lies under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. When a specific statutory remedy is available to challenge the arbitrator's decision, recourse to a writ petition is not maintainable against such an order of the District Collector acting as Arbitrator.

Conclusion: The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the arbitrator's decision.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed on the two issues decided against the writ petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Sections 41 and 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 do not extend the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitrations under a special enactment that does not itself prescribe limitation, and a writ petition is not maintainable where the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the specific remedial route under Section 34.

---