Extension of arbitration proceedings mandated by the court when delays are not attributable to the parties, ensuring fairness in the arbitral process.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, National Highway Authority of India, has come up before this Court seeking following prayers:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of the facts stated above the application may kindly be allowed and the time limit for completing the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Reference petition No.421/2018 pending before the Ld. Arbitratior-cum- Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, Camp at Solan, may kindly be extended for a further period of six months or any other orders or directions which this Ld. Court may deem fit be passed in the interest of justice.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Case set-up by Mr. S.C. Sharma, Learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner is that pursuant to the Notification under Section 3A of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956, the Central Government published a Notification to acquire the stretch of land from Kilometer 17/930 to Kilometer 35/312 of National Highway No.21-A [New National Highway No.105] for building, widening, maintenance, management and operation of the said Highway in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, the land belonging to respective shares of respondents No.2 to 48, herein, at Mouja Kripalpur, Hadbast No.143, District Solan [HP] was acquired. The Competent Authority of Land Acquisition [CALA]/Respondent No.1 i.e. SDO Civil Nalagarh, passed an Award on 06.03.2017 in relation of Village Kripalpur, Hadbast No.143.

2(i). Feeling aggrieved against the Award dated 06.03.2017 passed by Respondent No.1-CALA, the petitioners filed reference petition(s) before Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla [Camp at Solan, under Section 3(g) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT ], which was registered as Reference Petition No.421 of 2018, whereby the Learned Arbitrator continued the arbitral proceedings, but on 23.05.2023 [Annexure P-1], 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 the arbitral proceedings could not be completed within the lime schedule as per Section 29A(1) and Section 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

2(ii). Consequent upon the termination of mandate of Arbitrator and closure of arbitral proceedings the parties were directed to seek extension of time for continuance of arbitral proceedings by invoking the jurisdiction of a competent Court. In the above background, the petitioner-NHAI, has approached this Court that due to the passing of order dated 23.05.2023 [Annexure P-1] the petitioner was left without any remedy before an Arbitrator coupled with the fact that delay in completion of arbitral proceedings was not attributable either to the petitioners or the claimants-respondents. Moreover, the delay in completion of arbitral proceedings was entirely due to administrative reasons which reveal sufficient cause, for which the parties to arbitration should not be made to suffer. Moreover, the termination of arbitral proceedings and termination of mandate of Arbitrator tends to cause prejudice to the parties and therefore, in these circumstances, it was prayed that at least six months time may be granted to the Learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitral proceedings.

STAND OF RESPONDENTS:

3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 10.01.2024 in these proceedings neither the respondent No.1-CALA-cum-SDO, Civil Nalagarh, nor the private respondents No.2 to 48 have