IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No. : 21 of 2026 Decided on : 06.05.2026 Kapoor Singh and others …Applicants Versus National Highways Authority of India …Respondents and another Coram u The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicants : Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advocate.

For the respondents : Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S Rawat, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 2.

Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)

Applicants have filed the present application, under Section 29A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking indulgence of this Court to extend the time to conclude the

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

arbitration proceedings in Reference Petition No. 102 of 2021, titled Kapoor & Ors. Versus Collector Land Acquisition, National Highways Authority of India, pending adjudication before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitrator’).

2. Brief facts, leadting to the filing of the present application, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:

3. The land, measuring 0-16 bighas, comprised in khasra Nos. 342/308/264/210/177/1, situated at Mauja Shhamlech, Hadbast No. 643, Tehsil and District Solan, gH.P., of which, the applicants are the owners-in-

ipossession, was acquired by the respondents for building (widening/four laning), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No. 22 on the stretch of land from Parwanoo to Solan. The award, in this regard, was passed on 4^th January, 2021, bearing Award No. 26D, by the competent authority.

4. Dissatisfied with the said award, the applicants approached the learned Arbitrator, by way of Reference Petition No 102 of 2021, titled as Kapoor Singh and others versus National Highways Authority of India and another. However, the learned Arbitrator, vide order, dated 2^nd August, 2025, closed the arbitral proceedings, due to the termination of the mandate, as provided, under Section 29A (1), with liberty to the parties, to seek extension of time, under Section 2 (e) tof the Act. Hence, the instant application.

5. The extension of time has been sought, on the ground, that the matter was pursued, by both the parties sincerely and with due diligence, however, those phroceedings could not be concluded due to administrative greasons, as, the learned Arbitrator also happens to be the iDivisional Commissioner, Shimla, and the requisite time, as per Section 29A (1) of the Act, for passing the award, has already elapsed, due to administrative exigencies.

6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to extend the time, for a period of six months, for completion of the arbitral proceedings, before the learned Arbitrator.

7. Issue notice. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate; and Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, respectively.

8. The factual position, as asserted in the application, has not been disputed. However, in the reply, filed on behalf of respondentt No. 1, a number of objections have been taken, which have been considered.

9. As per the documents, annexed with the application, after completion of the pleadings, the parties were directed to adduce the evidence. On 3^rd June, 2025, thhe matter was ordered to be listed for RWs/arguments on

22^nd July, 2025, on which date, the case was adjourned to

2^nd August, 2025, on account of administrative exigencies.

On 2^nd August, 2025, the following order was passed by the learned Arbitrator:

“A perusal of this case reveals that this petition was instituted in this tribunal on 17- 07-2021 and the proceedings are going on which were not objected to by either of the parties. There is a time limit prescribed under section 29-A(