RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SUB DIVISION BHIWANDI
Applicability of Section 29A of the Arbitration Act to State Highways Act Arbitrations and Determination of Jurisdictional Court for Arbitrator Substitution.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:54372
Decision Date: 09-12-2025
List of Laws
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; The Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Facts: The petitioners, landowners whose land was acquired under the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955, sought enhanced compensation via arbitration. The Divisional Commissioner, Konkan, was initially appointed as the arbitrator. However, the Government of Maharashtra repeatedly changed the arbitrator between the Divisional Commissioners of Konkan and Nashik. Despite pleadings being completed in May 2021, no arbitral award was passed, leading the petitioners to invoke Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking substitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Divisional Commissioner, Konkan, also expressed inability to conduct the arbitration.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed Arbitration Petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, invoking Sections 11 and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the substitution of the arbitrator. Arbitration Petition No. 238 of 2025 was taken as the lead petition, with the disposal of this petition being instructive for the others.
- Issue: 1. Whether the High Court can appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the State Highways Act designates the State Government as the appointing authority? 2. Whether Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, applies to arbitrations under the State Highways Act, allowing for the substitution of the arbitrator when the mandate has expired? 3. Which court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act in this case?
- Holding: 1. No, the High Court cannot directly appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act in this case. 2. Yes, Section 29A of the Arbitration Act applies to arbitrations under the State Highways Act, allowing for the substitution of the arbitrator upon the expiry of the mandate. 3. The principal court of original jurisdiction over the district of Navi Mumbai has territorial jurisdiction under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that while the Arbitration Act applies to arbitrations under the State Highways Act, it does so "subject to" the provisions of the State Highways Act, which designates the State Government as the appointing authority. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sayedabad Tea Company, the Court held that Section 11 of the Arbitration Act cannot be invoked to override the special provisions of the State Highways Act regarding arbitrator appointment. However, the Court found that Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, which deals with the time limit for arbitral awards and the substitution of arbitrators, does not conflict with the State Highways Act. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind both Section 29A of the Arbitration Act and Section 19-B of the State Highways Act is to ensure timely and speedy disposal of disputes. Regarding territorial jurisdiction, the Court determined that the juridical seat of the arbitration is Navi Mumbai, where the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan, is headquartered. Therefore, the principal court of original jurisdiction over Navi Mumbai has jurisdiction under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act. The court distinguished the facts from State of Maharashtra vs. Atlanta Ltd., emphasizing that the subject matter was land acquisition, not construction.
🔒 For Members Only