Court extends arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(5) post-expiry and termination upon sufficient cause, quashing abeyance where delays due to respondent and administration, prioritizing efficient arbitration.

JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioner, Rajender Dev has come up before this Court in instant petition filed under Section 29-A of the ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT , 1996, seeking following relief(s):-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of the facts stated above the petition may kindly be allowed, and the time limit for completing the Arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Reference case No.406/2019 titled as Rajender Dev versus Collector Land Acquisition, NHAI and another pending before the Ld. Divisional Commissioner (Arbitrator), Mandi, Distt. Mandi, H.P. may kindly be extended by some reasonable time, or any other orders or directions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit be passed in the interest of justice.”

2. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 13.10.2025 and the subsequent orders dated 10.11.2025, the Respondents No. 1 and 2-NHAI has not filed the reply till day and, therefore, right to file the reply is closed. Learned State Counsel states that no reply is to be filed by Respondent No.3, as Respondents No. 1 & 2 are the contesting respondents.

3. On query by this Court, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that identical matters have been allowed by granting extension to Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, (HP) for concluding the arbitral proceedings.

4. In above backdrop, this Court, proceeds to dispose of the instant petition, without the reply having been filed, at this stage itself, which shall only expedite the conclusion of arbitral proceedings, in which parties herein have participated since the year 2019, till the passing of the Impugned Order on 17.05.2023 [Annexure P-1].

5. Grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to passing of the Award by CALA concerned, the parties offered themselves for arbitral proceedings, before Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, who commenced the arbitral proceedings vide Case No.406/2019. It is averred that though arbitral proceedings continued since 2019 but Learned Arbitrator passed an order on 17.05.2023 [Annexure P-1] for keeping the arbitral proceedings in abeyance. It is in this background, the present petition has been filed, with the prayer to direct Learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitral proceedings within a stipulated period by extending the time for concluding the arbitral proceedings under Section 29 A (4) & 5 of ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT , by quashing the order dated 17.05.2023 [Annexure P-1].

6. Heard, Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents-National Highway Authority of India and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.3.

7. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Learned Counsel for the respondents, does not dispute the factual matrix that the arbitral proceedings commenced in the year 2019 and since then, the parties have participated in these proceedings. It is not in dispute that in other identical cases relating to the same subject-land though the arbitral proceedings were kept in abeyance and the mandate of the Arbitrator was terminated but consequent upon the intervention of this Court, the time was enlarged/extended for concluding the arbitral proceedings. Pursuant to the orders passed in similar cases arbitral process are underway and/or in some case the same have been concluded.

8. While dealing with a similar fact-situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly TATA Sons Ltd.) vs. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. and others, reported in 2023 (1) SCALE 793, held that the mandate of an Arbitrator is liable to be extended by the Court, under Section 29A(4)