GEORGE Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The National Highway Authority, the appellant in the Writ Appeal and the writ petitioner, who was the respondent in the writ appeal, have come up with these review petitions. We considered two questions in the writ appeal filed by the National Highway which are as follows;

(2.) In the writ appeal, we answered the first question in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner, who was the claimant and we answered the second question in favour of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) holding that the writ petition is not maintainable challenging an award of the Arbitrator. The NHAI have come up with the review placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.226 of 2015, K.Leela Vs. The District Collector [2015(2) KHC 813] wherein this Court considered the question relating to the limitation in regard to the arbitration and held as follows:

(3.) This is the view contrary to our view in the writ appeal judgment. We note that the Division Bench in Leela's case (supra) had not adverted to Sec. 2(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which specifically excluded applicability of limitation to arbitration under any other enactment. That means the Parliament consciously laid the law to exclude the applicability of limitation to arbitration under any other enactment. Since Leela's case(supra), this Court had no occasion to consider Sec. 2(4) of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, we are of the view that the judgment in Leela's case(supra) to the extent holding that specific clause of Limitation Act would apply to the arbitration is per incuriam as it was laid ignoring the statutory provision.