Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal representatives of late Shivarama Gujjal, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 05/08/2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, in A.A. No. 01/2023. The respondents, National Highway Authority of India and others, had filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Principal District and Sessions Judge. The petitioners were the respondents in those proceedings. The grievance of the petitioners was that the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice to them, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The High Court examined the record and found that indeed no notice was issued to the petitioners before the order was passed. The court held that such an order is unsustainable in law. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Principal District and Sessions Judge for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The court directed that the proceedings be concluded within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Section 34 Application - Notice Requirement - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court held that an order passed under Section 34 without issuing notice to the opposite party is unsustainable in law. The impugned order dated 05/08/2023 in A.A. No. 01/2023 was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration after hearing both parties. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Principal District and Sessions Judge could pass an order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without issuing notice to the claimants/respondents.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05/08/2023 in A.A. No. 01/2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Principal District and Sessions Judge for fresh consideration after hearing both parties. The proceedings shall be concluded within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- requires notice to the opposite party before passing orders
- failure to issue notice renders the order liable to be set aside.
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (09) 66
WP No. 105173 of 2023 (GM-RES)
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum
Smt. Archana A. Magadum (for petitioners), Sri Rakesh M. Bilki (for respondent 1)
Smt. Renuka Gujjal and Others (Legal Representatives of Late Shivarama Gujjal)
National Highway Authority of India and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned order dated 05/08/2023 in A.A. No. 01/2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari.
Filing Reason
The impugned order was passed without issuing notice to the petitioners, who were respondents in the Section 34 proceedings.
Previous Decisions
The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, passed an order in A.A. No. 01/2023 on 05/08/2023 without notice to the petitioners.
Issues
Whether the order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, passed without notice to the opposite party is sustainable in law.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the impugned order was passed without any notice to them, violating principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi
An order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without issuing notice to the opposite party is unsustainable in law as it violates the principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
Captioned petition is filed by the claimants, who are respondents in the proceedings initiated by the respondents herein by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The present petitioners filed an application under Section 34 of the Act.
On perusal of the records, this court finds that the impugned order is passed without issuing notice to the petitioners.
The impugned order is unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
The respondents filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, which was registered as A.A. No. 01/2023. The Principal District and Sessions Judge passed an order on 05/08/2023 without issuing notice to the petitioners (respondents in that application). The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 34
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
