Court extends arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(5) for sufficient cause including clerical errors, procedural delays, pandemic effects not attributable to parties, ensuring logical conclusion of near-final proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner-Rajiv Salwan and three other, being the legal heirs of late Shri Sandesh Kumar (since deceased) have come up before this Court in instant petition filed under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking following relief(s):-

“That the period since the pendency of the Arbitration Case No.49/16 titled Sandesh Kumar deceased through Legal Representatives Vs. NHAI and others may be regularized and the mandate of the Arbitrator may be extended for a reasonable time as deemed proper by this Hon’ble Court.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Case as setup by 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 106.0002 to 155.800 Kms. (Solan–Shimla Section), for four lanning etc. in State of Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, the land in 22 villages of Tehsil Shimla [Rural], including the lands of the predecessor of the petitioners were acquired by Competent Authority/Land Acquisition [referred to as CALA] Award No.4, dated 25.05.2015.
2(i). Feeling aggrieved against the Award dated 25.05.2015, passed by CALA, the predecessor of the petitioners filed a reference petition before Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, which was registered as Reference Petition No.49/2016, upon which, the Learned Arbitrator commenced arbitral proceedings and these proceedings continued but surprisingly, the Learned Arbitrator passed a common order on 13.03.2023 [Annexure P-3], closing the arbitral proceedings on the ground that the mandate of Arbitrator stood terminated, as the arbitral proceedings could not be completed within the time schedule as prescribed under Section 29A(1) and Section 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
2(ii). Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the Learned Arbitrator on 13.03.2023 [Annexure P-3], the petitioner approached this Court under Section 29A(4)2(5) by filing Arbitration Case No. 03 of 2016. Rajiv Salwan and others versus National Highway Authority of India and another, seeking extension of mandate of an arbitrator and the same was granted by this Court on 24.08.2023 [Annexure P-4]. After grant of extension by this Court, the petitioner appeared before the arbitrator on 12.09.2023 and presented the copy of order granting extension. On 01.03.2024, the petitioner inquired about the status of the case but with no response. However, the petitioner was told that though other connected arbitration cases have been decided but since the copy of order dated 24.08.2023 [Annexure P-4] has been misplaced, he shall seek fresh extension from this Court. Moreover, the Learned Arbitrator order passed the judgment on 14.05.2025 [Annexure P-5] closing the arbitral proceeding on the ground that while passing the common order on 13.03.2023 [Annexure P-3 in Arbitration Case No. 03/2016], the name of predecessor of the petitioner was shown as Sandeep Kumar instead of Sandesh Kumar inadvertently and for this the petitioner was directed to seek correction of clerical mistake/typographical error.
In this backdrop, the petitioner has come up before this Court, for seeking extension of mandate of Arbitrator, so that the arbitral proceedings could be concluded expeditiously.

STAND OF RESPONDENT- NHAI IN REPLY:
3. Notice was issued in these proceedings on 11.11.2025, with direction to file reply, if any. Upon listing of the case today, Mr. Karan Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Respondent-NHAI, has filed the Reply- Affidavit.
3(i). In Reply-Affidavit, the factum that arbitral proceedings continued in Reference Petition No. 49 of 2016 till passing of Impugned Orders on 14.05.2025 [Annexure P-5] was not disputed. The Reply-Affidavit indicates that no fault lies with NHAI but Learned Arbitrator had failed to decide the claim within the stipulated time and had con