Court extends arbitrator mandate post-expiry under Sec 29A(4),(5) on sufficient cause like advanced proceedings, non-attributable delay, ensuring logical conclusion without petitioner fault.

JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioner-Neelam Kapoor has come up before this Court, under Section 29(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking following relief(s):-

“That the time limit for completing the Arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Reference case No. NH-154(13/24) titled as Neelam Kapoor v. CALA-cum-SDM Sadar, Mandi pending before the learned Arbitrator under National Highways Authority of India-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, may kindly be extended for a further period of six months from the date of order which may be passed by this Hon’ble Court.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Central Government issued a Notification under the National Highways Act for acquiring the land/ buildings on National Highway-21, on the stretch of land Pathankot–Manali Section, wherein, the land of the petitioner comprised in Khatouni No. 99/124, Khasra No. 1405/57 measuring 00-03-06 bighas (0.013) Khasra No(s). 66/2 situate in Mohal Muhal Bijni/365, Tehsil and District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh was acquired, in terms of the Award No. 9/2022 dated 24.08.2022.

2(i) Feeling dissatisfied against the Award, the petitioner filed a Reference before Learned Arbitrator- cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act vide Reference No. NH-154 (13/23) In re: Neelam Kapoor versus CALA-cum-SDM Sadar, Mandi. Perusal of the petition indicates that even after the completion of pleadings, Learned Arbitrator could not conclude the proceedings within the prescribed period of 12 months. Thereafter, with consent of the parties, the time for concluding the arbitral proceedings, was extended.

2(ii). Material on record indicates that after completion of pleadings the Issues were framed on 22.10.2024 and the case was listed for evidence on 21.12.2024 but Arbitrator passed an order dated 17.02.2025 [page-15 of the paper book], whereby, the Arbitrator closed the proceedings at the stage of evidence, on the ground, that the period for concluding the arbitral proceedings had expired and therefore, he had no mandate to continue with the same.

2(iii). It is averred that after the passing of the orders dated 17.02.2025, the mandate was extended by seeking judicial intervention of this Court. It is further borne out that the left over evidence was recorded on 07.04.2025 and the written arguments were taken on record and the matter was reserved for order on 09.06.2015 [Page-17 of the paper book]. However, the Learned Arbitrator- cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi passed an order on 05.08.2025 Annexure P-1 colly, [referred to as Impugned Order] on the ground, that this mandate stood terminated as the arbitral proceedings could not be completed within the statutory-extended period. In this backdrop, that the petitioner has come up before this Court, seeking extension of mandate for concluding the arbitral proceedings, under Section 29[A] [4] and [5] of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

STAND OF RESPONDENT No.2 [NHAI] :

3. Upon listing of this case today, Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Learned Counsel for respondent No.2- National Highway Authority of India, on Instructions, states that keeping in view the intent and object of the arbitral proceedings which have to be given a practical shape so that the rights of the parties fructify by taking the proceedings to logical end coupled with the fact that in similar cases, the Arbitration proceedings originated from the same acquisition notice and the award have been concluded; therefore, she submits that in peculiar fact-situation of this case, no reply is intended to be filed to the present case.

4. Learned State Counsel states that since the c