Court may extend arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(4),(5) post-termination for sufficient cause not attributable to petitioners, prioritizing pragmatic and effective arbitral conclusion.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner-Mohinder Singh and three other, being the legal heirs of late Shri Ratti Ram (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.159/16 titled Ratti Ram 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.”

2. FACTUAL MATRIX:
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.159/2016, 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-4], 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.
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). 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 continued with the proceedings thereafter.

4. Heard, Mr. Ashir Kaith, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents-National Highway Authority of India and Ms. Ayushi Negi, Learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.2.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS:
5. For appreciating the claim of the parties herein, it is necessary to have a recap of the statutory provision of Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’], reads as under:-

“29A. Time limit for arbitral award —
(1) The award in matters other than international commercial arbitration shall be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under subsection (4) of section 23:
Provided that the award in the matter of international commercial arbitration may be made as expeditiously as possible and endeavor may be made to dispose of the matter within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of section 23.
(2) If the award is made within a period of six months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference, the arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to receive such amount of additional fees as the parties may agree.
(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 s