##PAGE1##

2026:HHC:9343

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Arbitration Case No. 244 of 20P25 Date of decision : 24.03.2026.

Rani Bali ...Petitioner.

Versus

National Highway Authority of India & another ... Respondents.

Coram: f The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Varun Rana, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for urespondent No.1

oMr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.2/State.

______________________________________________________________

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

hThe present petition under Section 29 (4) of the Arbgitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the pietitioner seeking extension of time for completion of the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Reference Case No. 342/2019, titled as Rani Bali vs NHAI and others, pending before the Divisional Commissioner-cum- Arbitrator at Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., exercising the powers of Arbitrator under

Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956.

2 The arbitral dispute has arisen out of the land acquired in District Mandi, H.P. for the purpose of construction

1

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

::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:34 :::CIS

2026:HHC:9343

of the National Highway, land for which has been acquired

under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956. P

3 Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the competent authority, the land owner has preferred Arbitration Reference Case No.342/2019, before the A rbitrator cum- Divisional Commissioner, at Mandi Doistrict Mandi and non adjudication of the arbitral proceedings within the statutory

period has resulted in filing of the instant petition.

4 The Reference Petition against the Award was filed by the land owner in theo year 2019. According to the petitioner, on account of Cunforeseen circumstances in the case, which resulted in unnecessary delay in the announcement of the award by the learned Arbitrator, i.e. the Divisional

Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, HP.

5i This Court has gone through the material available on record carefully and finds that the proceedings have been conducted by the Arbitrator in violation of statutory provisions, as contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This Court is of the view that when a statute envisages an authority, be it an Arbitrator, to do a particular act in a particular manner and in a prescribed time schedule, then the onus is upon the said authority/Arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to it within the time schedule prescribed in the

::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:34 :::CIS

2026:HHC:9343

statute. The delay, if any, has to be bonafide and explainable.

However, in the present petition even after completion oPf the pleadings, the Arbitrator has closed the proceedings since the time limit for arbitral proceedings to pass an award had elapsed.

6 In view of aforesaid discusosions and taking into consideration the attending facts and circumstance of the instant case, the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, H.P., exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Higohways Act, 1956 is directed to conclude the arbitral proCceedings and to pass the arbitral award in Arbitration Reference Case No.342/2019, on or before 24th

September, 2026.

7 The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid teirms.

(Romesh Verma)

March 24, 2026 Judge (meera)

::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:34 :::CIS