{"id":242212,"date":"2021-01-13T15:30:09","date_gmt":"2021-01-13T10:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=242212"},"modified":"2021-01-15T11:41:49","modified_gmt":"2021-01-15T06:11:49","slug":"ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains\/","title":{"rendered":"Ker HC | Powers of Court under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 are merely supervisory in nature; Court cannot correct errors from the order of Arbitrator, but can only quash it: HC explains"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kerala High Court: <\/strong>The Division Bench of C.T. Ravikumar and K. Haripal, JJ., partially allowed the instant appeal challenging the correctness of the orders of the District Judge whereby the District Judge had declined to interfere with the arbitral award.<\/p>\n

Properties of the appellants were acquired by the National Highway Authority for the purpose of widening the Valayar-Vadakkanchery sector of NH 47 under a common notification and compensation was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Special Land Acquisition Officer had granted a total compensation of Rs 2,65,252 to appellant 1 on the basis of comparable sales method while compensation of Rs 3,37,337 was awarded to the appellant 2. Being dissatisfied with quantum of compensation, the appellants invoked the arbitration clause. The arbitrator granted an additional compensation of Rs 1,04,449 as an enhancement, besides 9% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of dispossession to appellant 1 and an enhancement of Rs 1,67,215 and 9% interest on the additional compensation was granted to appellant 2. On being aggrieved by the order of the arbitrator, the appellants moved the District Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Later on, the instant appeal was filed against the order of District Judge.<\/p>\n

The appellants contended that, the claims made were not properly considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Arbitrator, therefore, in order to prove the prevailing market value of the land and for quantifying the other damage suffered by them, they might be afforded one more opportunity and the matters might be remanded, enabling them to adduce further evidence.\u00a0 The appellants argued that they had not been granted solatium and interest on solatium, which they were entitled to as per the decision in Paul Mani v. Special Deputy Collector and Competent Authority,<\/em> 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 2700<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court observed, the argument of appellants that the claims were not considered by the authorities properly was factually incorrect as it was obvious from the orders passed by the Arbitrator, that even in the absence of the appellants producing supporting documents or proof, the Arbitrator had taken into consideration post-notification developments while granting enhancement in land value as well as the value of structures. As mentioned earlier, the Arbitrator had granted enhancement in compensation under all possible heads, making good the loss sustained by the appellants. The Court said, \u201cIt is the settled proposition of law that matters cannot be remanded back to the authority below in order to decide any question of fact which was not properly pleaded and no evidence was let in by the parties in support of the claim.\u201d <\/em>While reiterating settled proposition of law the Court said, having regard to the scope and ambit of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act that Court\u2019s power is merely supervisory in nature and the Court cannot act as though exercising the appellate jurisdiction. <\/strong>The Court also expressed that, no power had been invested by the Parliament in the Court to remand the matter to the arbitral tribunal. <\/strong>Therefore, the demand for remitting the case back to the arbitrator was denied. On the contention of non-payment of solatium, the court relied on Union of India and Another v. Tarsem Singh, <\/em>(2019) 9 SCC 304<\/a>, wherein the Supreme Court had held, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of the proviso to Section 28 will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. <\/em><\/p>\n

In view of the above, it was held that even in the absence of specific plea or proof, the appellants were entitled to claim solatium and interest on solatium under Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest in terms of the proviso to Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and the respondents were directed to quantify the amounts of solatium accordingly. [Eliyamma v. Deputy Collector, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 80<\/b><\/a>, decided on 07-01-2021]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of C.T. Ravikumar and K. Haripal, JJ., partially allowed the instant appeal challenging the correctness of <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2633,3226,17711,44808,2728,28724,29785],"class_list":["post-242212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitral_award","tag-arbitration","tag-arbitrator","tag-claim-solatium","tag-compensation","tag-district-judge","tag-law"],"yoast_head":"\nKer HC | Powers of Court under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 are merely supervisory in nature; Court cannot correct errors from the order of Arbitrator, but can only quash it: HC explains | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ker HC | Powers of Court under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 are merely supervisory in nature; Court cannot correct errors from the order of Arbitrator, but can only quash it: HC explains\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of C.T. Ravikumar and K. Haripal, JJ., partially allowed the instant appeal challenging the correctness of\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-01-13T10:00:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-01-15T06:11:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/KeralaHC-e1521442636157.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains\/\",\"name\":\"Ker HC | Powers of Court under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 are merely supervisory in nature; Court cannot correct errors from the order of Arbitrator, but can only quash it: HC explains | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-01-13T10:00:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-01-15T06:11:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ker HC | Powers of Court under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 are merely supervisory in nature; Court cannot correct errors from the order of Arbitrator, but can only quash it: HC explains\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ker HC | Powers of Court under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 are merely supervisory in nature; Court cannot correct errors from the order of Arbitrator, but can only quash it: HC explains | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ker HC | Powers of Court under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 are merely supervisory in nature; Court cannot correct errors from the order of Arbitrator, but can only quash it: HC explains","og_description":"Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of C.T. Ravikumar and K. Haripal, JJ., partially allowed the instant appeal challenging the correctness of","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-01-13T10:00:09+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-01-15T06:11:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/KeralaHC-e1521442636157.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains\/","name":"Ker HC | Powers of Court under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 are merely supervisory in nature; Court cannot correct errors from the order of Arbitrator, but can only quash it: HC explains | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-01-13T10:00:09+00:00","dateModified":"2021-01-15T06:11:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/ker-hc-powers-of-court-under-s-34-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-are-merely-supervisory-in-nature-court-cannot-correct-errors-from-the-order-of-arbitrator-but-can-only-quash-it-hc-explains\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ker HC | Powers of Court under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 are merely supervisory in nature; Court cannot correct errors from the order of Arbitrator, but can only quash it: HC explains"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":243039,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/30\/ker-hc-an-arbitral-award-cannot-be-set-aside-merely-on-the-ground-that-compensation-awarded-is-insufficient-hc-concurs-with-findings-of-lower-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":242212,"position":0},"title":"Ker HC | \u201cAn Arbitral award cannot be set aside merely on the ground that compensation awarded is insufficient\u201d; HC concurs with findings of lower Court \u00a0","author":"Editor","date":"January 30, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of C. T. Ravikumar and K. Haripal, JJ., partly allowed the instant petition filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The grievances of the appellant were that, 0.0336 hectares of land owned and possessed by him was acquired by the Nation\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":298894,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/","url_meta":{"origin":242212,"position":1},"title":"Consent for extending arbitral period under Section 29A(3) of 2015 Amendment Act doesn\u2019t need to be express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC","author":"Editor","date":"August 8, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe consensus of the parties in proceeding with the arbitration case beyond twelve months without raising any objection to the continuation of proceeding does amount to consent. On the basis of such consent, the arbitral award if passed after six months would be a valid award.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"himachal pradesh high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":354442,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/24\/ori-hc-on-scope-judicial-intervention-sections-34-37-arbitration-conciliation-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":242212,"position":2},"title":"Orissa HC explains the scope of judicial intervention under Ss. 34 and 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Editor","date":"July 24, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe scope of Section 34 review, though narrow, does permit the court to excise patently illegal portions of an award, even if a granular item-by-item objection was not pleaded, so long as the broad ground was raised and both parties had opportunity to address.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Scope of Judicial Intervention under Arbitration Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Scope-of-Judicial-Intervention-under-Arbitration-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Scope-of-Judicial-Intervention-under-Arbitration-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Scope-of-Judicial-Intervention-under-Arbitration-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Scope-of-Judicial-Intervention-under-Arbitration-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":335560,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/20\/arbitral-award-enforceable-wherever-it-can-be-executed\/","url_meta":{"origin":242212,"position":3},"title":"Arbitral Award treated as deemed decree; Execution can be initiated anywhere such decree can be executed: Allahabad HC","author":"Editor","date":"November 20, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court reiterated that Arbitration Act transcends all territorial barriers.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Allahabad High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":210968,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/26\/p-fair-compensation-to-be-determined-for-all-landowners\/","url_meta":{"origin":242212,"position":4},"title":"P&H HC | S. 28-A of Land Acquisition Act not an adversarial form of adjudication; fair compensation to be determined for all landowners","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 26, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: This writ petition was filed before the Bench of G.S. Sandhawalia, J., against the award passed by the Arbitrator under the Railway (Amendment) Act, 2008, whereby the market value had been fixed for the land acquired for the Dedicated Freight Corridor Project. The dispute was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":251618,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/22\/arbitral-award-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":242212,"position":5},"title":"Can Courts modify Arbitral Awards under S. 34 of Arbitration Act or is power limited? SC decides","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 22, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ., while addressing a significant and interesting question of law expressed that, \"If one were to include the power to modify an award in Section 34, one would be crossing the Lakshman Rekha\" Interesting Question of Law Whether the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242212","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=242212"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242212\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}