A consequential compliance order cannot revive a challenge to an arbitral determination already rejected under Section 34.

Land belonging to respondent No. 1 was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956.

The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition/Sub-Divisional Officer initially passed an award on 12 August 2008.

Respondent No. 1 challenged the compensation under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and the Arbitrator directed enhancement of compensation in accordance with the applicable rules.

Pursuant to that direction, the CALA passed an order dated 30 June 2016 recomputing and enhancing the compensation.

NHAI challenged that order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but the challenge was rejected by the District Judge on 12 December 2017.

The CALA thereafter passed a further order dated 26 July 2016 directing NHAI to pay the differential compensation.

NHAI again challenged this subsequent order before the Arbitrator, but the challenge was rejected on 16 January 2020 on the ground that the Arbitrator’s earlier determination dated 30 June 2016 had already been made.

NHAI then challenged the order dated 16 January 2020 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Principal District Judge rejected that application on 11 March 2026, leading to the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Act.

The Court applied Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, governing appeals from orders refusing to set aside an arbitral award, and Section 34, which provides the statutory remedy for setting aside an arbitral award.

It also considered Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, under which disputes regarding compensation are referred to arbitration.

The governing principle was that once a party has challenged an arbitral determination under Section 34 and that challenge has been rejected, it cannot seek a second opportunity to challenge the same determination by attacking a subsequent administrative or implementation order passed pursuant to it.

A consequential order implementing an earlier arbitral determination does not create a fresh cause of action to reopen or relitigate the original determination.

The Arbitrator’s order dated 30 June 2016 constituted the substantive determination enhancing the compensation.

NHAI had already challenged that determination under Section 34, and the challenge was rejected on 12 December 2017.

The CALA’s later order dated 26 July 2016 merely recomputed the compensation and directed payment of the differential amount in compliance with the Arbitrator’s directions.

Therefore, NHAI could not use the consequential CALA order to obtain a second challenge before the Arbitrator and the Principal District Judge.

If NHAI was aggrieved by the rejection of its original Section 34 application, its remedy was to file an appeal under Section 37 against the order dated 12 December 2017, which it did not pursue.

The Principal District Judge consequently committed no error in rejecting the subsequent Section 34 application.

NHAI had already exhausted its Section 34 remedy against the Arbitrator’s order dated 30 June 2016 and could not mount a second challenge through the consequential order.

Finding no illegality in the order of the Principal District Judge, the Court declined to admit the appeal and dismissed it at the motion stage.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.