IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Gopinder Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Competent Authority (SLAU) and Another - Respondents
Arbitration Case No:51 of 2025 a/w Arbitration Case Nos.52, 53 & 81 of 2025
Decided On : 17-03-2025
(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3(A) - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 29A(1), 29A(3), 29A(4), and 29A(5) - Land acquisition for highway construction - Petitioners sought extension of time for completion of arbitral proceedings which were delayed due to administrative reasons and COVID-19 pandemic - The court emphasized that parties should not suffer due to delays not attributable to them. (Paras 4, 8, 10, and 11)
(B) Arbitration - Time limits for arbitral awards - The court held that the mandate of an arbitrator can be extended for sufficient cause, especially when delays are not due to the parties involved. (Paras 8(i), 8(ii), and 8(iv))
(C) Prejudice to parties - The court concluded that terminating the arbitrator's mandate prejudiced the parties, necessitating the restoration of the arbitration proceedings. (Paras 8(iii) and 9)
(D) Result - The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, directing the arbitrator to complete proceedings within six months. (Paras 11)
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Since common question of facts and law are involved, therefore, with the consent of parties, all these cases, are taken up for adjudication together at this stage, in the interests of justice.
2. Learned Counsel for petitioners states that Arbitration Case No.51 of 2025, titled as Gopinder Singh versus The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Competent Authority (SLAU), may be treated as ‘Lead Case’ for adjudication of all the connected petitions. Prayer not opposed by Learned Counsel for contesting respondents-NHAI. The prayer is allowed and accordingly, this Court proceeds in the above matters.
3. Petitioner [Gopinder Singh] in Lead Case i.e. Arbitration Case No.51 of 2024, has come up, before this Court, seeking the following relief(s):-
“It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that keeping in view the submission made here in above the present petition/application may kindly be allowed the Ld. Arbitrator cum Divisional Commissioner Mandi Division Mandi H.P. be granted further more time to complete the arbitration proceedings in Ref. No.673/18 or any other relief as this Hon’ble Court deem fit may kindly also be granted in favour of the applicant/petitioner in the larger interest of natural justice and justice be done.”
FACTUAL MATRIX IN LEAD CASE-ARBITRATION CASE NO.51 OF 2025,
4. Case of petitioner [Gopinder Singh] in Arbitration Case No.51 of 2025, as set-up by Mr. H.S. Rangra, Learned Counsel is that pursuant to Notification under Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act , 1956, the Central Government published a Notification to acquire the stretch of land Mandi-Gagal-Baggi-Janjehi and Shimla via Churag Karsog, [NH-21] for building, widening, maintenance, management and operation of said Highway in State of Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, the land belonging to petitioner at Village Behna, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi [HP] was acquired by CALA i.e. Competent Authority/Land Acquisition in terms of an Award No.5/2016-17 (SNR), dated 15.12.2016.
4(i). Feeling aggrieved against the Award dated 15.12.2016, passed by Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, the petitioner filed a reference petition before Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi, which was registered as Reference Petition No.673/18 whereby, Learned Arbitrator continued the arbitral proceedings, but on 16.02.2024 [Annexure P-2, Colly], referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’, the arbitral proceedings were closed and the mandate of Arbitrator was treated to have been terminated on the ground that arbitral proceedings could not be completed within the time schedule as per Section 29A(1) and Section 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act .
4(ii). Consequent upon the passing of the Impugned Order on 16.02.2024 [Annexure P-2, Colly] terminating the mandate of Arbitrator and in keeping the arbitral proceedings in abeyance till extension was sought from a competent Court, therefore, in these circumstances, since the petitioner was left without any remedy coupled with the fact that the delay in completion of arbitral proceedings was not attributable to the petitioner; and the delay in completion of arbitral proceedings was entirely due to administrative reasons, for which, the parties should not be made to suffer, coupled with the fact that termination of mandate of Arbitrator will cause prejudice to the parties therefore, in these circumstances, it was prayed that the time for completion of arbitral proceedings may be enlarged with directions to Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner concerned to conclude the proceedings.
5. Upon listing of this case today on 17.03.2025 and in response to a query by this Court, Learned Counsel(s) for parties, jointly represented that in similar matters, relating to Mandi-Gagal-Baggi- Janjehi and Shimla via Churag Karsog, [NH-21], this Court had enlarged time for conclusion of arbitral proceedings with direction(s) to Learned Arbitrator- cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi [HP] to com
The court established that an arbitrator's mandate can be extended for sufficient cause, ensuring parties are not prejudiced by delays not attributable to them.
The court can extend the time for arbitral proceedings under sufficient cause, preventing parties from suffering due to delays not attributable to them.
The court may extend the mandate of an Arbitrator for sufficient cause, ensuring parties are not prejudiced by delays not attributable to them.
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.
The court ruled that arbitration mandates may be extended due to administrative delays not attributable to the parties, affirming the need for the timely resolution of disputes while preventing preju....
The court ruled that delays in arbitral proceedings due to administrative reasons and the COVID-19 pandemic justified extending the Arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conci....
Extension of arbitration proceedings mandated by the court when delays are not attributable to the parties, ensuring fairness in the arbitral process.
The court emphasized that delays in arbitration due to administrative issues not attributable to the parties justify extending the arbitrator's mandate as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Co....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.