Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Daya Ram - Petitioner
Versus
Land Acquisition Officer and Another - Respondents
Arb. Case No. 200 of 2022
Decided On : 11-01-2023
Arbitration - Extension of Time - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 29-A(5) - 29-A(1), 29-A(3), 29-A(4), 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, as the award had not been passed within the stipulated time period of 12 months from the completion of proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the arbitral award is required to be passed within 12 months from the date of completion of proceedings, with a provision for extension of time for a further period not exceeding six months with the consent of the parties. The court also considered the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the delay in the proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should grant an extension of time for the learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitration proceedings and pass an arbitral award, considering the provisions of Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Section 29-A(1), 29-A(3), and 29-A(5) of the Act allow for the extension of time for passing the arbitral award, and in this case, the delay in proceedings due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the backlog of cases justified the grant of an extension.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and granted a further six months’ time to the learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitration proceedings.
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. 2/2015-16 dated 28.11.2015 land of petitioner situate on Khasra No. 1013/882/830/1, Village Behna Jatta/180, Tehsil Jhandutta, 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.2/2015-16 dated 28.11.2015 before learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi.
3. Though pleadings in the case were completed on 23.5.2018, 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. Prayer made in the present petition has been opposed by the respondents 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 respondent No.2, submits that since in the case at hand, pleadings were completed on 23.5.2018 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 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 that
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 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 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'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....
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.
The court maintains supervisory discretion under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to determine the extension of an arbitrator's mandate based on the progress of proceedings....
Extension of arbitration proceedings mandated by the court when delays are not attributable to the parties, ensuring fairness in the arbitral 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
