Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Sanjeev Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Land Acquisition Officer and Another – Respondents
Arbitration Case No. 128 of 2022
Decided On : 16-11-2022
Arbitration - Extension of Time - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - S. 29-A(5)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought an extension of time for the learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitration proceedings and pass an arbitral award due to delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and an increased workload for the arbitrator.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the arbitral award should have been passed within 12 months from the date of completion of proceedings, with a provision for extension of up to six months with the consent of the parties. The court also considered the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the increased workload on the arbitrator's ability to conclude the proceedings within the stipulated time.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should grant an extension of time for the learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitration proceedings due to the delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and an increased workload.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of S.29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which stipulate the time limits for passing an arbitral award and the possibility of extending the time with the consent of the parties. The court also considered the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the increased workload on the arbitrator's ability to conclude the proceedings within the stipulated time.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and granted a further six months' time to the learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitration proceedings, considering the delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the increased workload. The parties were directed to render proper assistance to the learned Arbitrator to ensure the proceedings are concluded within the stipulated time.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
1. 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 petitioner and proforma respondents Nos. 3 to 7 for extension of time, enabling the learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitration proceedings and pass arbitral award.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that vide Award No. 17/1 of 2013-14, dated 31.12.2013, structure No. 60 i.e. house, shop, temple and WC of the petitioner and proforma respondents situate on Khasra No. 7/1, Village Palthin/460, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh came to be acquired for the construction of four-lane (Bilaspur-Nerchowk Section) road. Since the petitioner and proforma respondents were not satisfied with the amount of compensation assessed by the Competent Authority-cum-Land Acquisition (CALA), they filed petition under S.3G(5) of National Highways Act, 1956 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide supplementary award No. 17/1 of 2013-14, dated 31.12.2013 before learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi (Annexure P-1).
3. Though pleadings in the case were completed on 22.8.2019, and matter was fixed for evidence thereafter, but the fact remains that till date, arbitral award has not been passed. Since, after amendment of the Section 29-A of the Act, it is mandatory for the arbitral tribunal to pass award within a period of 12 months from the date of completion of proceedings under sub-section 4 of Section 23 of the Act and arbitral tribunal has not been able to pass the award within the time stipulated herein above, petitioner being party to the arbitration proceedings has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for extension of time enabling the arbitral tribunal to pass an award.
4. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have filed reply to the petition, wherein prayer made in the present petition has been opposed on the ground that no plausible ground has been raised for extension of time. Apart from above, it has been further averred in the reply that as per Section 29-A(3) of the Act, learned Arbitrator can extend time to a period not exceeding six months, meaning thereby, in any eventuality, award is to be passed within eighteen months from the date of completion of proceedings.
5. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate duly assisted by Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 2, submits that since in the case at hand, pleadings were completed on 22.8.2019 before learned Arbitrator, he ought to have passed an award before August, 2020 and now on account of delay, arbitral proceedings deserve to be closed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of S.29 of the Act, which is reproduced as under:
(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,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant an extension of time for the learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitration proceedings, taking into account except....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to grant an extension of time for passing the arbitral award under the provisions of Section 29-A of the Arbitrat....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to grant an extension of time for the conclusion of arbitration proceedings under Section 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and Conc....
Court extends arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(5) post-expiry and termination upon sufficient cause, quashing abeyance where delays due to respondent and administration, prioritizing efficient ....
Court extends arbitrator mandate post-expiry under Sec 29A(4),(5) on sufficient cause like advanced proceedings, non-attributable delay, ensuring logical conclusion without petitioner fault.
Extension of arbitration proceedings mandated by the court when delays are not attributable to the parties, ensuring fairness in the arbitral process.
Court extends arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A upon sufficient cause like procedural delays and parties' participation, even post-18 months, to prevent defeating arbitration object by technical....
The court ruled that extensions of time for arbitral proceedings are warranted when delays are not attributable to the parties, prioritizing efficiency and justice in the arbitration process.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
