IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2006 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2006 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2006 Mrs. Sharifa Mohd. Sayeed Raut, Mrs. Sharifa Mohd. Sayeed Raut, Mrs. Sharifa Mohd. Sayeed Raut, Deceased leaving behind her heirs & Deceased leaving behind her heirs & Deceased leaving behind her heirs & legal representatives: legal representatives: legal representatives: (a) Mohammad Ayyub Sayeed Raut & Ors. .. Appellants (a) Mohammad Ayyub Sayeed Raut & Ors. .. Appellants (a) Mohammad Ayyub Sayeed Raut & Ors. .. Appellants Versus Versus Versus Mr. Akil A. Latif Naik & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Akil A. Latif Naik & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Akil A. Latif Naik & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. M.D.Angal for the Appellants. Mr. M.D.Angal for the Appellants. Mr. M.D.Angal for the Appellants. CORAM CORAM CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH,J. D.K.DESHMUKH,J. D.K.DESHMUKH,J. DATE DATE DATE : 9th August,2006. 9th August,2006. 9th August,2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. By this Appeal, the Appellants challenge the 1. By this Appeal, the Appellants challenge the 1. By this Appeal, the Appellants challenge the order passed by the Joint District Judge, Thane, order passed by the Joint District Judge, Thane, order passed by the Joint District Judge, Thane, dismissing the Application filed under Section 34 of dismissing the Application filed under Section 34 of dismissing the Application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, by which the the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, by which the the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, by which the Appellants challenged the Award dated 13th July, 2005. Appellants challenged the Award dated 13th July, 2005. Appellants challenged the Award dated 13th July, 2005. 2. In nutshell, the Award is that the contract 2. In nutshell, the Award is that the contract 2. In nutshell, the Award is that the contract between the parties became void because the land between the parties became void because the land between the parties became void because the land became subject to the CRZ Regulation and, therefore, became subject to the CRZ Regulation and, therefore, became subject to the CRZ Regulation and, therefore, the amount of Rs.8 lakhs which was paid by the the amount of Rs.8 lakhs which was paid by the the amount of Rs.8 lakhs which was paid by the Respondents to the Appellants has been directed to be Respondents to the Appellants has been directed to be Respondents to the Appellants has been directed to be refunded. The first ground urged before me was with refunded. The first ground urged before me was with refunded. The first ground urged before me was with regard to limitation. On a perusal of the Application regard to limitation. On a perusal of the Application regard to limitation. On a perusal of the Application filed under Section 34 of the Act, it is found that filed under Section 34 of the Act, it is found that filed under Section 34 of the Act, it is found that ground has not been raised before the Court. ground has not been raised before the Court. ground has not been raised before the Court. Therefore, in the Appeal, that ground cannot be Therefore, in the Appeal, that ground cannot be Therefore, in the Appeal, that ground cannot be allowed to be raised. The second submission was that allowed to be raised. The second submission was that allowed to be raised. The second submission was that the Court has not found that the Appellants were the Court has not found that the Appellants were the Court has not found that the Appellants were negligent in performing their obligation under the negligent in performing their obligation under the negligent in performing their obligation under the contract. Therefore refund could not have been contract. Therefore refund could not have been contract. Therefore refund could not have been ordered. In my opinion, once it is an admitted ordered. In my opinion, once it is an admitted ordered. In my opinion, once it is an admitted position between the parties that the contract became position between the parties that the contract became position between the parties that the contract became void because of the land being subject to CRZ void because of the land being subject to CRZ void because of the land being subject to CRZ Regulation, then the Appellants cannot retain the Regulation, then the Appellants cannot retain the Regulation, then the Appellants cannot retain the benefits received by them under the contract which has benefits received by them under the contract which has benefits received by them under the contract which has become void and therefore the Appellants were rightly become void and therefore the Appellants were rightly become void and therefore the Appellants were rightly directed to return those benefits. directed to return those benefits. directed to return those benefits. 3. I do not see any illegality either in the Award 3. I do not see any illegality either in the Award 3. I do not see any illegality either in the Award or in the order passed by the learned District Judge. or in the order passed by the learned District Judge. or in the order passed by the learned District Judge. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. --- --- --- (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.)