Dismissal Of Section 37 Appeal Against Set-Aside Award Rendered Infructuous By Subsequent Fresh Award

The appellants are land losers whose property was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) under the National Highways Act, 1956

An initial compensation award was passed on April 3, 2017, in proceedings where the appellants were not formal parties

This 2017 award was subsequently set aside by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barasat, via an order dated June 3, 2023, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with directions to pass a fresh award

Consequently, a new award was passed on October 6, 2023

The appellants initially filed a writ petition (WPA 8093 of 2024), which was dismissed on August 12, 2024, with liberty to pursue statutory remedies under the 1996 Act

The appellants then filed the present appeal under Section 37 challenging the June 3, 2023 order

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should be condoned.

2. Whether the order dated June 3, 2023, setting aside the original award, warrants interference when a fresh award has already been passed and acted upon.

The court applied Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, governing appeals against certain orders in arbitration matters

It also considered the principle that a litigant should not be prejudiced by the acts or omissions of their advocate regarding the condonation of delay

Furthermore, the court examined the scope of judicial interference under Section 34 of the Act, which limits the grounds upon which a court can set aside an arbitral award

The court first addressed the procedural delay. Applying the principle of equity, the court condoned the delay in filing the Section 37 appeal, noting that the appellants were pursuing a bona fide remedy in the Writ Court based on legal advice

On the merits, the court observed that the impugned order dated June 3, 2023, had already been fully implemented; it had set aside the 2017 award and directed the passing of a new award, which was indeed passed on October 6, 2023

The court noted that the 2017 award effectively "does not exist any further"

The appellants failed to challenge the new award (October 6, 2023) under Section 34 and instead assailed the order that set aside the defunct previous award

Additionally, the court found no evidence that the Trial Judge exceeded the statutory parameters of Section 34 in passing the impugned order

However, it dismissed the appeal (FMAT (ARBAWARD) 14 of 2025) on the grounds that the impugned order had already been acted upon and the appellants failed to challenge the subsequent fresh award

All connected applications (CAN 1 and CAN 2 of 2025) were consequently disposed of without costs