BORAIAH v. MANJANNA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6591 OF 2025 (AA) BETWEEN:
1. BORAIAH S/O SANNA MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O MUTHAYYANAHATTI VILLAGE GONUR POST CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501 (BY SRI GURUDATH V.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:
MANJANNA S/O B.C.CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS AGRICULTURIST
GEETHAMMA D/O. B.CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS AGRICULTURIST
RAKESH S/O B. CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS AGRICULTURIST - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44015-DB MFA No. 6591 of 2025 HC-KAR
THIPPESWAMY S/O MANJANNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS AGRICULTURIST
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, (SLAO - NHAI) KSRTC DEPOT ROAD CHITRADURGA - 577 501
MANJAMMA D/O. CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS AGRICULTURIST
PALAMMA D/O. B.CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AGRICULTURIST
THIPPESWAMY S/O. B. CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS AGRICULTURIST
RAJESH S/O. MANJANNA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS AGRICULTURIST
CHINNAPPA S/O. LATE BAYANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS AGRICULTURIST ALL RESPONDENT No.1 TO 4 AND RESPONDENT No.5 TO 10 ARE R/O. MUTHAYYANAHATTI VILLAGE GONUR POST CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44015-DB MFA No. 6591 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD: 31-7-2025 PASSED BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AN CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, SLAO FOR ACQUIRING 2,424 SQR. MTRS. OF LAND IN SY.NO.22 OF MALLAPURA VILLAGE IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT AND ETC. AT CHITRADURGA A.C.NO.2/2019 IN THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has filed a memo seeking to withdraw the present appeal. The memo indicates that the appellant seeks liberty to file an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act]. However, it does not appear that there is any arbitral award, which can be challenged under Section 37 of the A&C Act.
Operative part
2. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44015-DB MFA No. 6591 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. However, it is clarified that this would not preclude the appellant from availing all such remedies as otherwise available in law. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 37.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.