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.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Since common question of facts and law are involved, therefore, with the consent of parties, allthese 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.933 of 2024, titled as Parshotam Singh versus National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) & Another, may be treated as ‘Lead Case’ for adjudicating the said case and all connected petitions. Prayer not opposed by Learned Counsel for contesting respondents. Accordingly, the prayer is allowed and this Court proceeds in the above matters.

3. Petitioner [Parshotam Singh] in Lead Case i.e. Arbitration Case No.933 of 2024, has come up, before this Court, seeking the following relief(s):-

“ 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 Case No.(Revenue Appeal) No.198 of 2022, titled as Parshotam Singh versus NHAI and another pending adjudication before the learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra [HP], may kindly be extended for a further period of 6 months and delay if any may kindly be condoned.”

FACTUAL MATRIX IN LEAD CASE-ARBITRATION CASE NO.933 OF 2024.

4. Case of petitioner [Parshotam Singh] in Arbitration Case No.933 of 2024, as set-up by Mr. Arush Matlotia, 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 from Kilometer 11.0 to Kilometer 42.0 (Pathankot-Mandi Section) of National Highway No.154 for building, widening, maintenance, management and operation of said Highway in State of Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, the land belonging to petitioner at Village Kohri, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra [HP] was acquired by CALA i.e. Competent Authority/Land Acquisition in terms of an Award No.11 of 2021, dated 25.02.2021.

4(i). Feeling aggrieved against the Award dated 25.02.2021, passed by Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, the petitioner filed a reference petition under Section 3G(5) of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT before Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh which was registered as Revenue Appeal No.198 of 2022, whereby, Learned Arbitrator initiated the reference proceedings in April 2022 by directing the NHAI to file reply, which was filed belatedly. Thereafter issues were framed and after recording evidence of PW’s, the matter was taken up by Learned Arbitrator by directing the Respondent-NHAI to lead evidence. Thus, the arbitral proceedings were not concluded within the maximum permissible period of eighteen months as mandated under Section 29A(1) and Section 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

4(ii). It is averred that though the parties participated in arbitral proceedings from time to time, yet, abruptly the Arbitrator has passed an order that since the Award has not been passed within the period of maximum permissible period of eighteen months, therefore, the mandate of Arbitrator stands terminated and the arbitral proceedings were kept in abeyance so as to enable the parties to seek extension of mandate or continuance of these proceedings from a competent Court.

In this background, the petitioner has set up a case in Para 7 of instant petition, which reads as under:-

“7. That as per Section 29 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award has to be passed within 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings but the said period of 12 months but thereafter the parties continued to participate in the proceedings for a further period beyond 6 months as provided under Section 29 A(3) but the award has not been passed till date and as such the mandate of the Arbitrator stands terminated under the law.”

4(iii). Based on averments in Para 7 of the instant petition and consequent upo