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 Conciliation Act.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

1. Petitioner [Keshav Ram], has come up, before this Court, seeking the following relief(s):-

“That the period from 12-05-2020 onwards may kindly be regularized and the mandate of the Arbitrator may kindly be extended for a reasonable time.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Case of petitioner [Keshav Ram] as set- up by Mr. H.S. Chandel, Learned Counsel is thatpursuant to Notification under Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Central Government published a Notification to acquire the stretch of land from 106.0002 to 155.800 Kms. (Solan – Shimla Section) for four lanning etc. in State of Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, the land in 22 villages of Tehsil Shimla [Rural], including the lands of petitioner was acquired by CALA i.e. Competent Authority/Land Acquisition in terms of anAward No.4, dated 25.05.2015:

(i)Feeling aggrieved against the Award dated 25.05.2015, passed by Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, the petitioner filed a reference petition before Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, which was registered as Reference Petition No. 83/2018, whereby, Learned Arbitrator continued the arbitral proceedings, but on 14.03.2023 [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.

(ii) Consequent upon the passing of the Impugned Order on 14.03.2023, 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 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.

3. Upon listing of this case today and in response to a query by this Court, Learned Counsel(s) for parties, jointly represented that in similar matters, relating to Solan-Shimla, Section of NH, this Court had enlarged time for conclusion of arbitral proceedings with direction(s) to Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla [HP] to complete the arbitral proceedings within a reasonable time.

4. Heard, Mr. H.S. Chandel and Mr. Ashir Kaith, Learned Counsel for petitioner and Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Learned Counsel for contesting respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Gobind Korla, Learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.2 and have gone through the material on record.

STATUTORY PROVISION:

5. In order to appreciate the claim of the parties herein, it is necessary to have a recap of the statutory provision of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’] which reads as under:-

“29A. 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 endeavor 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 sh