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

2025 Supreme(HP) 572

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J.
Ambara Devi - Appellant 
Versus
National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and another - Respondent 
Arbitration Case No. 711 of 2024
Decided on : 05-03-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Advocate vice Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General

Timely completion of arbitration proceedings is mandatory under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and failure to comply may result in termination of the Arbitrator's mandate.

Headnote:

(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 29A - Land acquisition for National Highway-21 - Delay in arbitration proceedings - The court observed that the Arbitrator failed to adhere to statutory timelines, resulting in the termination of the mandate unless extended by the court - The court emphasized the need for timely completion of arbitration to ensure fair compensation for landowners. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 10, 12)

(B) Arbitration - Timeliness and adherence to statutory provisions - The court highlighted the importance of compliance with the time limits set forth in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the consequences of non-compliance. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The dispute arose from land acquisition for National Highway-21, with the petitioners challenging the delay in arbitration proceedings initiated under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Arbitrator's mandate was found to have expired due to non-compliance with statutory timelines.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the Arbitrator to conclude proceedings by 05.09.2025 and emphasized the need for a timetable to ensure timely progress.

Issues: The main issues included the Arbitrator's failure to complete proceedings within the statutory time limits and the implications of such delays on the landowners' rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that adherence to statutory timelines is mandatory, and failure to comply could lead to termination of the Arbitrator's mandate, thereby affecting the rights of the landowners.

Result: Petitions allowed with directions to conclude arbitration proceedings by 05.09.2025.

Table of Content
1. reference petition filed (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. observations on proceedings (Para 5 , 6)
3. callous attitude of arbitrator (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. remiss in duties (Para 10 , 11)
5. directions to conclude proceedings (Para 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

The arbitral dispute arises out of the land acquisition in District Bilaspur, H.P. for the purpose of building (widening/ four laning etc.) maintenance, management and operation of National Highway- 21. The land has been acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 .

2. Arbitration case No. 711 of 2024 pertains to Award No. 8/2016/17 dated 16.01.2017, with respect to which the petitioner had preferred Reference Petition No. 1408 of 2017. In the aforesaid reference, the Arbitrator had issued notices for 04.01.2018. The right to file reply was closed. Vide order dated 07.12.2021, it was observed that the mandate of the Arbitrator had expired. Hence, the aforesaid arbitral proceedings were kept in abeyance, till the time period for completing the arbitral proceedings, was extended under Section 29A.

3. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is evident that the Reference Petition against the award had been filed by the land owners about 5 years back.

4. The relevant extract of the provisions involved in the present lis, as amended by the Act No 33 of 2019 w.e.f 31.08.2019, are being reproduced here-in-below for a ready reference:-

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

(2)…………..

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 subsection (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 proceedings have been delayed for the reasons attributable to the arbitral tribunal, then, it may order reduction of fees of arbitrator(s) by not exceeding five per cent 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. Section 23.

Statements of claim and defence

(4) The statement of claim and defence under this section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date the arbitrator or all the arbitrators, as the case may be, received notice, in writing, of their appointment.”

The sum and substance of the aforesaid provisions is that from the date the arbitrator receives notice the statement of claim and defence (pleadings) shall be completed within a period of six months there from. Further the award shall be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings. However, the parties may, by consent, extend the period specified for making award for a further period not exceeding six months. If the award is not made within the period specified or the extended period specified the mandate of the arbitrator shall terminate unless the court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period. The extension may be on the application of any of the parties. The same may be granted only

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