CASE COMMENTARY ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS SAYEDABAD TEA COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS

AUTHOR- SHRISTHI VERMA, INSTITUTE OF LAW, NIRMA UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

Best Citation – SHRISTHI VERMA, CASE COMMENTARY ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS SAYEDABAD TEA COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS, ILE FORFIX (ILE FORFIX), 1 (1) of 2023, Pg. 6-9, APIS – 3920 – 0038 | ISBN – 978-81-964391-3-2.

Abstract

Alternative Dispute Resolution brought a change in a dynamic legal process where lengthy processes of justice drain a person both physically, mentally, and in monetary terms too. Alternative Dispute Resolution provides relief to the person to be saved from the hassle of filing file papers and waiting for long periods of hearing. Alternative Dispute Resolution provides the remedy of out-of-court settlement which helps the parties to agree on the issues from the process which is not tedious and is cost-efficient. Although we are still living in a time where the transition of the legal process from litigation to Alternative Dispute Resolution is slow yet before we can form the strategies to address the problem we need to identify the inefficiency in the Alternative Dispute Resolution and Conciliation Act, of 1996. The landmark judgment on National Highways Authority of India vs Sayedabad Tea Estate addresses the conflict between Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and Section 3G of the National Highways Act 1956. The question of law which was addressed in this case is whether Section 11 of the Act, 1996 which provided the procedure for the appointment of an arbitrator can override Section 3G of the National Highways Authority of India.