NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITYOF versus SAYEDABAD TEA COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 725 · Decided: 27-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
725
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITYOF INDIA
v.
SAYEDABAD TEA COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6958-6959 of 2009)
AUGUST 27, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
National Highways Act, 1956: s.3G(5) – Arbitration and
Conciliation Act 1996 – s. 11 – Appointment of arbitrator –
Application u/s. 3G(5) of the 1956 Act for appointment of an
Arbitrator by the Central Government – Allegation that Central
Government did not respond to the request for appointment –
Thereafter, application filed u/s. 11 of the 1996 Act – Maintainability
of application u/s. 11 of the 1996 Act, in view of s. 3G(5) of the
1956 Act – Held: When the special law sets out a self-contained
code, the application of general law would impliedly be excluded –
Scheme of 1956 Act, being a special law enacted for the purpose
and for appointment of an arbitrator by the Central Government
u/s. 3G(5) of the 1956 Act and sub-section (6) of s.3G itself clarifies
that subject to the provisions of the Act 1956, the arbitrator may
take recourse in adjudicating the dispute invoking the provisions
of 1996 Act for the limited purpose – Thus, in view of the power
being vested exclusively with the Central Government to appoint
an Arbitrator u/s 3G(5) of the Act 1956, the application filed u/s
11(6) of the Act 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator not
maintainable and provisions of the Act, 1996 could not be invoked
for the purpose – Order by the High Court appointing an Arbitrator
invoking s. 11 of the 1996 Act, set aside – Arbitrator so appointed
by the Central Government may adjudicate and decide the dispute.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The National Highways Act, 1956 is a
comprehensive code and a special enactment which provides an
inbuilt mechanism not only in initiating acquisition until
culmination of the proceedings in determining the compensation
and its adjudication by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 725
725
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
726
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
Central Government and if still remain dissatisfied, by the Court
of law. In compliance of the mandate of Sections 3A to 3F of the
Act, 1956, after the land is acquired, there shall be paid an amount
of compensation which shall be determined by an order of the
competent authority under sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 3G
of the Act, 1956 and any person who is aggrieved by the amount
so determined by the competent authority or what being
determined is not acceptable to either of the parties, on an
application being filed by either of the parties, has to be
determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central
Government in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 3G of the Act,
1956. After analysing the scheme, it can be assumed that the
legislature intended the Act, 1956 to act as a complete code in
itself for the purpose of acquisition until culmination including
disbursement and for settlement of disputes and this conclusion
is further strengthened in view of Section 3J of the Act which
eliminates the application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to
an acquisition under the Act, 1956. [Para 16, 17, 18][734-G-H;
735-A-D]
1.2 It is settled principles of law that when the special law
sets out a self-contained code, the application of general law would
impliedly be excluded. In the instant case, the scheme of Act,
1956 being a special law enacted for the purpose and for
appointment of an arbitrator by the Central Government under
Section 3G(5) of Act, 1956 and sub-section (6) of Section 3G itself
clarifies that subject to the provisions of the Act 1956, the
provisions of Act 1996 shall apply to every arbitration obviously
to the extent where the Act 1956 is silent, the Arbitrator may
take recourse in adjudicating the dispute invoking the provisions
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the limited
purpose. But so far as the appointment of an Arbitrator is
concerned, the power being exclusively vested with the Central
Government as envisaged under sub-section (5) of Section 3G of
Act 1956, Section 11 of the Act 1996 has no application. [Para
19][735-D-F]
1.3 The plea of the respondents that they have rightly taken
recourse in the facts and circumstances of Section 11 of the Act,
1996 cannot be accepted for the reason that Section 3G(6) of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
727
Act, 1956 clearly stipulates that the provisions of the Act, 1996
will apply subject to the provisions of the Act, 1956. The usage of
the ex

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.