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 Conciliation Act, 1996, taking into account the impact of exceptional circumstances such as the Covid-19 pandemic.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep Sharma, J.)

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 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. 19/2 of 2013-14 dated 10.9.2014, structure No. 228 of the petitioner situate on Khasra No. 90/1, Village Auhar, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh i. came to be acquired for the construction of four-lane (Bilaspur-Nerchowk Section) road. Since the petitioner was 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 aforesaid award 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 the respondents 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:

“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 arbitrator(s) 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