##PAGE1##

2025:HHC:45336

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

AT SHIMLA

Arbitration Case No. 384 of 2025.

Decided on : 23rd December, 20P25

__________________________________________________________

Balak Ram ...Petitioner

Versus

Secretary National Highway Authorfity

Delhi and another o ...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1 Whether approved for reportring? No

For the petitioner Mr. Hem Chand Sharma,

Advocate.

For the responodents : Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate,

for respondent No.1.

C Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, Deputy

Advocate General for

respondent No.2.

Rhanjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioner, Balak Ram 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, most respectfully prayed

that this application/petition may very

kindly be allowed and the impugned order

dated 05.04.2023 passed in Case

No.38/19 alongwith other connected

matter may kindly be set aside/quashed

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:51:37 :::CIS

- 2 - 2025:HHC:45336

and the time period in this case may

kindly be extended and the Ld. Arbitrator-

cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla

may kindly be directed to decide the case .

No.38/2019 in a time bound manner and

justice be done.”

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant

to passing of the Award by CALA concerned,

the parties offered themselvfes for arbitral

proceedings, before Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional

Commissioner, Shimla, wtho commenced the arbitral

proceedings vide Case No.38/2019. It is averred that

though arbitral proceedings continued since 2019

but Learned Arbitrator passed an order on 05.04.2023

[Annexure P-1], for keeping the arbitral proceedings in

ahbeyance. 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 05.04.2023 [Annexure P-1].

3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this

Court on 04.12.2025, the contesting Respondent No.1-

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:51:37 :::CIS

- 3 - 2025:HHC:45336

National Highway Authority of India has filed

Reply-Affidavit dated 10.12.2025 whereby, the factual

matrix about the pendency of the arbitral proceedings

since 2019 is admitted. So far as the c.laim for

extension in the instant case is concerned, the

respondents have stated that though the mandate of

the Arbitrator had expired on 05.04.2023 [Annexure

P-1] but the instant petition has been filed by the

petitioner after a delay of almost 2 years and 6 months

and therefore, the prayer for extension is opposed.

4. Learned State Counsel states that no reply

is to be filed by Respondent No.2, as Respondents No.

1 is the contesting respondents.

5. 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, Shimla, (HP)

for concluding the arbitral proceedings.

6. Heard, Mr. Hem Chand Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner, Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate for the

respondents-National Highway Authority of India

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:51:37 :::CIS

- 4 - 2025:HHC:45336

and Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, Learned Deputy Advocate

General for respondent No.2.

7. Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Learned Counsel for the

respondents, does not dispute the factua.l 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 th