Karnataka High Court
COMAP/108/2025 of MR N RAVIRAJ SHETTY Vs THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY on 24 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010118972025 NC: 2026:KHC:53245-DB COMAP No. 108 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 112 of 2025 COMAP No. 113 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
COMMERCIAL APPEALS NO. 108 OF 2025
C/W
COMMERCIAL APPEALS NO. 112 OF 2025
COMMERCIAL APPEALS NO. 113 OF 2025
IN COMAP No. 108/2025
BETWEEN:
MR. N. RAVIRAJ SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O LATE B RAGHURAM SHETTY
R/AT FLAT NO. 1201
WEST WIND APARTMENTS
COLLECTORS GATE
BALMATTA, MANGALURU - 575 002.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUHAS C.S., FOR
SRI. RAKESH KINI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
AUTHOIRTY OF INDIA
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT
DOOR NO. 3-29, BETHEL
THARETHOTA NEAR PUMPWELL
Digitally
signed by
SUMA B N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
(NH-66), MANGALURU - 575 005
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT
DIRECTOR.
2.
THE ARBITRATOR AND
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D.K. DISTRICT
MANGALURU -575 001.
3.
THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
AND SEPCIAL LAND
ACQUISTIION OFFICER
MANGALURU, D K
MANGALURU -575 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PADMANABHA HOLLA S.,ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2- AND R3 SERVED)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL / COMAP IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 13(1) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 AND
UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 09.09.2024 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND COMMERCIAL COURT, D.K, MANGALURU IN A.P.NO.275/2023 (DOCUMENT NO.1), AND AWARD COSTS OF THE ENTIRE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS TO
WHICH
THE
APPELLANT
IS
SUBJECTED
TO
BY
THE
RESPONDENT
NO.1,
INCLUDING
THE
COSTS
OF
THE
APPELLANT HEREIN.
IN COMAP NO. 112/2025
BETWEEN:
MR. N. RAVIRAJ SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O LATE B. RAGHURAM SHETTY,
HC-KAR
R/AT FLAT NO. 1201,
WEST WIND APARTMENTS,
COLLECTORS GATE, BALMATTA,
MANGALURU-575 002.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUHAS C.S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAKESH KINI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
AUTHORITY OF INDIA
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT,
DOOR NO. 3-29, BETHEL,
THARETHOTA, NEAR PUMPWELL (NH-66),
MANGALURU-575 005.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT
DIRECTOR.
2.
THE ARBITRATOR AND
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D.K., DISTRICT,
MANGALURU-575 001.
3.
THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
AND SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MANGALURU, D.K.,
MANGALURU -575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PADMANABHA HOLLA S.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 SERVED)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL / COMAP IS UNDER
SECTION 13(1) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURT ACT, 2015
AND UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
HC-KAR
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2024, PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND COMMERCIAL COURT, D.K., MANGALURU, IN
AP NO.276/2023 (DOCUMENT NO.1).
IN COMAP NO. 113/2025
BETWEEN:
MR N RAVIRAJ SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O LATE B. RAGHURAM SHETTY,
R/AT FLAT NO. 1201,
WEST WIND APARTMENTS,
COLLECTORS GATE,
BALMATTA,
MANGALURU-575 002.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAKESH KINI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
AUTHOIRTY OF INDIA PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION UNIT,
DOOR NO. 3-29, BETHEL,
THARETHOTA,
NEAR PUMPWELL (NH-66),
MANGALURU-575 005.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROJECT DIRECTOR.
2.
THE ARBITRATOR AND
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D.K., DISTRICT,
MANGALURU-575 001.
3.
THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
AND SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HC-KAR
MANGALURU, D.K.,
MANGALURU - 575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PADMANABHA HOLLA S.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3; R-2 SERVED)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL / COMAP IS UNDER
SECTION 13(1A) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
04.05.2023 PASSED BY THE ARBITRATOR (N.H) AND DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU, IN C.DIS.ARB(4) NH.LAQ.CR. 17/2022-23 (DOCUMENT NO.2)
AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 09.09.2024, PASSED BY THE IV ADDIITONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND COMMERCIAL COURT, D.K., MANGALURU IN A.P. NO. 274/2023 (DOCUMENT NO.1)
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The learned counsels appearing for the appellant and the respondents are unanimous in making submission that the subject matter of these appeals is squarely covered by the judgment passed in Commercial Appeal No.107/2025 dated 12.02.2026, and therefore, these appeals also disposed of in terms of the said judgment whereby the arbitral award has
HC-KAR
been set aside and the parties have been given liberty to commence the arbitral proceeding afresh, if they are so advised.
2. Paragraphs 10 to 14 of the Commercial Appeal No.107/2025 dated 12.02.2026 reads as under; "10. In terms of Section 34(2)(iii) of the A&C Act, an arbitral award may be set aside by the Court if the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an Arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case.
11. In the present case, the order sheet of the Arbitral Tribunal indicates that no proper hearing was held. We, accordingly, find merit in the appellant's contention that he was unable to present his case. The impugned award is liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(iii) of the A&C Act, as well as on the ground of patent illegality, as it is apparent that the impugned award has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
12. The impugned order is also unsustainable as it fails to address the grounds on which the appellant had sought the setting aside of the impugned award.
13. In view of the above, the impugned order and the impugned award are set aside. The present appeal is accordingly allowed.
14. The parties are at liberty to commence the arbitral proceedings afresh."
HC-KAR
3. We therefore allow these appeals in terms of the aforesaid order.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN) JUDGE
RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20