IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Case No.877 of 2024 Date of decision: 03.07.2025 Prem Laxmi and Company. ...Petitioner.

Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. ...Respondents.

Coram:

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the petitioner : Mr. Hashmit Trivedi and Mr.

Neeraj Salodkar, Advocates u (through VC) with Mr. Vasu Jal, Mr. Sambhav Bhasin and Ms.

Shruti Dubey, Advocates.

For the respondents : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior C Advocate with Mr. Surender Kumar, Advocate.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks to extend the mandate of the gArbitral Tribunal. Respondent oppose this prayer.

2. In relation to a dispute between the parties, an arbitral award was passed on 16.05.2013. The objections filed against it by the present petitioner were dismissed on 25.04.2019. The said order was assailed by the petitioner in Arbitration Appeal No. 8 of 2019. The Arbitration Appeal was disposed of on 06.11.2019. The judgment dated 25.04.2019 was set aside. The arbitral award dated 16.05.2013 was also set aside. With the consent of the parties, Sh. Naresh Kumar Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes Sood, learned Senior Advocate, H.P. High Court, was appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispu.te between the parties within the time frame fixed in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the ActH’) and on the basis of the existing material available on record. Neither of the parties was permitted to introduce any fresh pleadings, documents or evidence. The operative portion from the decision rendered on 06.11.2t019 in Arbitration Appeal No.8 of 2019 is extracted hereinafter:-

“19 Aso noticed above, even the learned Single Judge below has erred in upholding an award, which was virtually bereft of any reasons for the conclusions drawn by the Arbitrator, therefore, not only the award but even the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.

h 22 Accordingly, with the consent of parties, Mr. Naresh Kumar Sood, learned Senior Advocate, H.P. High Court, who is present in the Court, is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties within the time frame fixed in the Act on the basis of the existing i material available on record, meaning thereby, no party H shall be permitted to introduce any fresh pleadings, documents or evidence etc. It shall be open for the learned Arbitrator to fix his fee.”

Pursuant thereto, Sh. Naresh Kumar Sood, learned Senior Advocate entered upon the reference.

The learned Arbitrator passed an order on

01.07.2024, observing therein that his mandate to decide the arbitral proceedings had come to an end; In view of the amendment of Section 29-A(1) of the Act by Act 33 of 2019, and in terms of the amended provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the overall maximum time lim.it for making the award was 24 months, the said period expired on 21.11.2021. H Petitioner prays for extending the mandate of learned Arbitrator.

3. Petitioner has placed on record a letter dated 09.03.2020, inter alia, addtressed to it by the learned Arbitrator, adjourning the arbitral proceedings after suffering injuries, which restricted his movements. The proceedings were adjourned by eight weeks. The letter also stated that notice of the adjourned date shall follow. It is not in dihspute that no further notice from the Arbitrator was greceived by either of the parties.

It is the case set up by the petitioner that, on account of the COVID-19 pandemic in the interregnum, the proceedings could not be conducted. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that after easing of COVID-19 restrictions in the year 2022, many telephonic conversations were held with the learned Arbitrator for holding the arbitral proceedings; however, date for hearing was not fixed. On 31.05.2024, the petitioner wrote a letter to the learned Arbitrator for fixing the s