SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(HP) 416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Ashwani Kumar Son Of Sh. Jagar Nath - Appellant
Vs.
Land Acquisition Officer Cum Competent Authority Under National Highways Act, 1956 Cum Assistant Commissioner To Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, H.P. - Respondent
Arbitration Case No. 4 Of 2022
Decided On : 12-01-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ravinder Thakur And Ms. Suman Thakur, Adv.
For the Respondent:Mr. Arvind Sharma, Additional Advocate General With Mr. Narinder Thakur, Mr. Kamal Kishore And Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Deputy Advocates General, Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate With Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate

The court can grant an extension of time for arbitral proceedings if it is satisfied that the delay was due to circumstances beyond the control of the arbitral tribunal, as provided under S.29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Extension of Time - National Highways Act, 1956, S.3(G) 5 o 7 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.29A

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought an extension of time to conclude arbitral proceedings due to the inability of the arbitral tribunal to complete the proceedings within the stipulated period of 12 months, attributed to circumstances beyond its control, particularly the Covid-19 pandemic.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the arbitral tribunal was unable to conclude the proceedings due to circumstances beyond its control, and therefore, granted the petitioner's request for a six-month extension to conclude the arbitration proceedings.

Issues: Extension of time for arbitral proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the applicability of S.3(G) (6) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Ratio Decidendi: The court can extend the time for arbitral proceedings if it is satisfied that the arbitral tribunal has not been able to conclude the proceedings due to circumstances beyond its control, as provided under S.29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Final Decision: The petition for extension of time was allowed, and a further six months' time was granted to the arbitral tribunal to conclude the arbitration proceedings.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition filed under S.29(A)(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘Act’), prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to extend the time to conclude arbitral proceedings.

2. No reply is intended to be filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly state that the prayer made in the instant petition can be allowed.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that the land and building situate over Khewat No. 04, Khatauni No. 333, Khasra No. 779/3871 situate at Mohal Chamukha Hadbast No. 41, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, came to be acquired by respondent No.1 for construction/widening of NH 21, but since the petitioner was not satisfied with the amount of compensation determined by respondent No.1, he preferred a petition under S. 3(G) 5 o 7 of the National Highways Act, 1956 before learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, praying therein for enhancement of the compensation awarded by respondent No.1 (Annexure P-1). Pursuant to notices issued in the petition, respondents filed reply on 22.7.2019 and matter was fixed for further proceedings, (Annexure P-2). Since the arbitral tribunal has been not able to conclude the proceedings within the stipulated period of 12 months, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for extension of time.

4. S.3(G) (6) of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides that the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act shall apply to every arbitration under the Act and as such provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act govern the arbitration proceedings conducted under the National Highways Act, 1956.

5. S.29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015 reads as under :

    “29-A. Time-limit for arbitral award.- (1) The award in matters other than international commercial arbitration shall be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of Section 23 :

Provided that the award in the matter of international commercial arbitration may be made as expeditiously as possible and endeavour may be made to dispose of the matter within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of Section 23.]

(2) If the award is made within a period of six months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference, the arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to receive such amount of additional fees as the parties may agree.

(3) The parties may, by consent, extend the period specified in sub-section (1) for making award for a further period not exceeding six months.

(4) If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrators shall terminate unless the court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period :

Provided that while extending the period under this sub-section, if the court finds that the proceedings have been delayed for the reasons attributable to the arbitral tribunal, then, it may order reduction of fees of arbitrators by not exceeding five percent for each month of such delay:

[Provided further that where an application under sub-section (5) is pending, the mandate of the arbitrator shall continue till the disposal of the said application:

Provided also that the arbitrator shall be given an opportunity of being heard before the fees is reduced.]

(5) The extension of period referred to in sub-section (4) may be on the application of any of the parties and may be granted only for sufficient cause and on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the court.

(6) While extending the period referred to in sub-section (4), it shall be open to the court to substitute one or all of the arbitrators and if one or all of the arbitrators are substituted, the arbitral proceedings shall c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top