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

2024 Supreme(HP) 351

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J.
Rajinder Sharma - Petitioner
 Versus
Government of India and another - Respondents
Arbitration Case No.608 of 2024
Decided on : 23-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Senior Panel Counsel, Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocates

Arbitrator must adhere to statutory timelines; delays can lead to termination of mandate to ensure just compensation for affected parties.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 29-A - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 23 and 29-A - Delay in arbitration proceedings - The Court observed that the Arbitrator had failed to adhere to the mandatory timelines stipulated by law, resulting in abeyance of proceedings - Acknowledging the authority to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator under specific circumstances but emphasizing compliance with statutory timelines and the necessity of fair compensation for affected landowners. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12)

(B) Arbitration - Conduct of Arbitrator - The Arbitrator must diligently perform their duties within the time frame set forth by the statute, with delays needing to be explained bona fide; failure to do so may result in termination of their mandate by the Court. (Paras 5, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a reference petition regarding the award related to land acquisition for National Highway purposes; the Arbitrator's mandate expired due to delayed proceedings extending over years.

Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that arbitration proceedings must conclude by 23.03.2025 and directed the Arbitrator to establish a timetable for moving forward.

Issues: Whether the statutory time limits for arbitration proceedings were adhered to and the implications of delays on the rights of landowners.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court established that adherence to statutory timelines is mandatory in arbitration proceedings, and failure to comply may lead to the termination of the Arbitrator's mandate, ensuring landowners receive just compensation.

Result: Petitions allowed; Arbitrator directed to conclude proceedings by 23.03.2025.

Table of Content
1. land acquisition process and case background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. statutory time limits for arbitration. (Para 4)
3. arbitrator's duty to adhere to statutory provisions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. exclusion of specific periods in computing limitation. (Para 8)
5. consequences of failing to complete arbitration timely. (Para 10 , 11)
6. directions for conclusion of arbitration proceedings. (Para 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

The arbitral dispute arises out of the land acquisition in District Solan, H.P. for the purpose of building (widening/ four laning etc.) maintenance, management and operation of National Highway- 22. The land has been acquired under the provisions of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956.

2. Arbitration case No. 608 of 2024 pertains to Award No. 30 dated 27.06.2016, with respect to which the petitioner had preferred Reference Petition No. 458 of 2018. In the aforesaid reference, the Arbitrator had issued notices on 3.12.2018. The reply was filed on 30.08.2019. Vide order dated 26.05.2023, 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 29-A.

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) 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 sub-section (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 sub- section (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

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

AI

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