M/S AGRAWAL FOODSTUFF LLP vs THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND DY.COLLECTOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

Judgment text excerpt

31-ARA(ST)-37045-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPEAL (ST) NO. 37045 OF 2025 M/s. Agrawal Foodstuff LLP …Appellant Versus The Land Acquisition Officer and Dy. Collector, General Administration …Respondents Mr. Tarak Shah, for the Appellant. Mr. A. R. Patil, Addl. G. P., for the Respondent-State. Mr. Kunal Damle a/w Mr. Ankit Patil, for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : APRIL 23, 2026. Oral Judgement: 1. The challenge in this Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) is to an order dated September 18, 2025, passed under Section 34 of the Act, by which an Arbitral Award dated April 4, 2024, which was passed in a statutory arbitration conducted under the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955, has been set aside. Page 1 of 5 APRIL 23, 2026 Gitalaxmi 31-ARA(ST)-37045-2025.doc 2. The Section 34 Court has given detailed reasons as to why it believes that the Arbitral Award is arbitrary in nature. This includes analysing the treatment given to the adjoining land and to the approach of the Arbitrator to the legislative intent of other attendant legislations such as, the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands Act, 1961 and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. 3. Be that as it may, for the reasons set out in the Impugned Judgement, the Section 34 Court has come to a considered view that the Arbitral Award deserves to be set aside. In fact, the Section 34 Court accepted the contention of the Appellant in this case, who was the Petitioner before the Section 34 Court. 4. Learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellant would submit that the Section 34 Court ought not to have remanded the matter; and instead it ought to have applied the principles on which it found the