Bombay High Court

ARVIND PUNDALIK DHAMNEversusTHE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THR PROJECT DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The condonation of a 13‑day delay is within the statutory limit and the High Court will not interfere with the district judge's order.

Summary

Arvind Pundalik Dhamne filed a writ petition challenging the district judge's order that condoned a 13‑day delay in filing a Section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to contest an arbitral award on land acquisition compensation. The petitioner argued that the delay was impermissible and that the award rate was excessive. The High Court examined whether the condonation fell within the statutory 30‑day limit and considered its reluctance to interfere with discretionary orders under Articles 226 and 227. Finding that the delay was short, within the outer limit of Section 34(3), and that arguable points existed in the Section 34 application, the Court declined to interfere. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a 13‑day delay in filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be condoned.
Whether the High Court should interfere with a discretionary order of condonation of delay under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 34, 34(3)
National Highways Act, 1956

Subjects

Arbitration
Section 34
Condonation of delay
Land acquisition
Compensation
High Court jurisdiction
Writ petition
Discretionary order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:45899

                                         1                          905.WP-13450-2026.doc



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 13450 OF 2026

                           ARVIND PUNDALIK DHAMNE
                                    VERSUS
                   THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
                      THR PROJECT DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER

                                               …
                           Advocate for Petitioner : Adv. Sakshi A. Kale

                     Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Bondar Uttam Bajirao
                                               …
                                               CORAM      : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                                  DATE    : 1 st OCTOBER 2026

              PER COURT :
              1.         By the impugned order dated 28.07.2026, the learned
              Principal District Judge has condoned the delay of 13 days in filing
              an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
              Act, 1996 for challenging the award passed by the Competent
              Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) under the provisions of the
              National Highways Act, 1956. A perusal of the application for
              condonation of delay indicates that the delay is explained by
              referring to procedural formalities which were needed to be complied
              with in order to file the application under Section 34 of the said Act.


              2.         It also appears that, as against the rate of Rs.2,181/- per
              square metre determined by the SLAO, the Arbitral Tribunal has
              awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.5,521/- per square metre by
                             2                            905.WP-13450-2026.doc



taking into consideration the ready reckoner rate of Rs.6,000/- per
square metre, which, according to the Petitioner, is merely Rs.200/-
per square metre, this Court is not inclined to examine at this stage
whether the compensation is correctly determined. However, having
regard to the fact that the delay is only of 13 days and that arguable
points appear to have been raised in the application under Section 34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the impugned order
condoning the delay of 13 days does not warrant interference.


3.         It is well settled that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, should be
slow in interfering with discretionary orders which are impugned
before it. An order passed on an application for condonation of delay
essentially involves exercise of judicial discretion. In the present case,
the delay is only of 13 days and falls well within the outer limit of 30
days prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. Considering the short duration of the delay,
this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the learned District Judge. The Writ Petition is, therefore,
dismissed.



                                                  ROHIT W. JOSHI
                                                     JUDGE

NAJEEB..

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…