IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Roop Lal - Appellant
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition National Highway Authority of India - Respondent
Arbitration Case Nos. 456, 457, 458, 459 of 2024
Decided On : 07-03-2025
(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3(A) - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 29A(1), 29A(3), 29A(4), 29A(5) - Termination of mandate of Arbitrator - Delay in arbitral proceedings due to COVID-19 and administrative reasons - Court held that the petitioner should not suffer due to the abrupt termination of the mandate of the Arbitrator, and the time for completion of arbitral proceedings was extended. (Paras 4, 8, 12)
(B) Arbitration Proceedings - Extension of time - The court has the authority to extend the time for making an award under sufficient cause, ensuring that parties are not prejudiced by delays not attributable to them. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash the order terminating the mandate of the Arbitrator due to delays in proceedings caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and non-filing of replies by the respondents. The petitioner argued that the delays were not their fault and requested an extension for the completion of arbitral proceedings. (Paras 4, 8)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the delays were primarily due to administrative reasons and the pandemic, and thus, the Impugned Order terminating the mandate was set aside, restoring the proceedings. (Paras 12)
Issues: The main issues were whether the delays in the arbitral proceedings were attributable to the petitioner and whether the mandate of the Arbitrator could be extended. (Paras 10, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner should not suffer due to the Arbitrator's inability to complete proceedings within the stipulated time, emphasizing the need for sufficient cause to extend the mandate. (Paras 9, 10)
Result: All petitions allowed; the Impugned Orders were quashed and set aside, and the Arbitrator was directed to complete proceedings within six months.
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
1. 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. 457 of 2024, titled as Jaswant Kaur vs. Collector Land Acquisition, National Highway Authority of India & Others, may be treated as ‘Lead Case’ for adjudication of all the connected petitions. Prayer not opposed by Learned Counsel for contesting respondents No.1 & 2-NHAI. The prayer is allowed and accordingly, this Court proceeds in the above matters.
3. Petitioner [Jaswant Kaur] in Lead Case i.e. Arbitration Case No. 457 of 2024, has come up, before this Court, seeking the following relief(s):-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this application/petition may very kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 08.02.2023 passed in Case No.9/19 alongwith other connected matter may kindly be set aside/quashed and the time period in this case may kindly be extended and the Ld. Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division Mandi may kindly be directed to decide the case No.9/19 in a time bound manner and justice be done.”
FACTUAL MATRIX IN LEAD CASE-ARBITRATION CASE NO. 457 OF 2024
4. Case of petitioner [Jaswant Kaur] in Arbitration Case No.457 of 2024, as set-up by Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, 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 Nerchowk to Manali, National Highway No. 21 for building, widening, maintenance, management and operation of said Highway in State of Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, the land belonging to petitioner at Village Trambali, Tehsil & District Kullu [HP] was acquired by CALA i.e. Competent Authority/Land Acquisition in terms of an Award No. 104/1, dated 31.05.2017:
(i)Feeling aggrieved against the Award dated 31.05.2017, 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. 9/19, whereby, Learned Arbitrator continued the arbitral proceedings, but on 08.02.2023 [Annexure P-1, 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.
(ii) Consequent upon the passing of the Impugned Order on 08.02.2023 [Annexure P-1, 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 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. Despite nine opportunities, since24.04.2024, the contesting respondents 1 & 2-NHAI have chosen not to file any reply in instant proceedings:
(i)Upon listing of this case today on 28.02.2025 and in response to a query by this Court, Learned Counsel(s) for parties, jointly represented that in similar matters, relating to Nerchowk-Manali, Section of NH-21, this Court had enlarged time for conclusion of arbitral proceedings with direction(s) to Learn
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 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 extensions of time for arbitral proceedings are warranted when delays are not attributable to the parties, prioritizing efficiency and justice in the arbitration process.
Extension of arbitration proceedings mandated by the court when delays are not attributable to the parties, ensuring fairness in the arbitral process.
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....
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....
The court can extend the time for arbitral proceedings under sufficient cause, preventing parties from suffering due to delays not attributable to them.
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 established that an arbitrator's mandate can be extended for sufficient cause, ensuring parties are not prejudiced by delays not attributable to them.
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.