Allowed

Bhole Nath v. NHAI and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Jun 2024ARB.C/411/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's prayer to extend the arbitrator's mandate by six months. The delay in concluding the arbitration proceedings, originally commenced in 2018, was attributed to circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic rather than negligence.

What did the court decide?

The period of mandate of the Arbitrator was extended by six months from the date of the order.

Bhole Nath Vs NHAI and Ors. — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:3494 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Arb. Case No. 411 of 2024

¶4

Decided on: 15.06.2024

¶5

Bhole Nath. .…Petitioner.

Versus

N.H.A.I. and Anr.

…Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶12

For the petitioner	:	Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents	:	Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, vice Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
	:	Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 2.

¶13

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)

¶14

By way of instant petition, a prayer has been

¶15

made to extend the period of mandate of Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 569 of 2018.

¶16

It is mentioned that though the Arbitrator

¶17

had entered the reference in the year 2018, a lot of period

¶18

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶19

¶20

was lost on account of circumstances created in the interregnum by COVID-19 Pandemic. This led to completion of pleadings on 30.12.2021.

¶21

The Arbitrator had not been able to conclude the proceedings within the time prescribed under Section 29 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which has caused the petitioner to approach this Court for extension of time.

¶22

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in case the time is not extended the valuable civil rights of the petitioner shall be adversely affected without any fault on his part. The proceedings before learned Arbitrator are to determine the market value of the acquired land of the petitioner by assessing as to whether the value so assessed by the Collector is correct or not.

¶23

Though, the National Highways Authority of India has filed its reply but it has not been able to point out any special circumstance which disentitles the petitioner from the prayer made by way of instant petition.

¶24

¶25

I am satisfied that the proceedings in the arbitration matter before learned Arbitrator has not been delayed on account of negligence of the petitioner or any other stakeholder.

¶26

In this view of the matter, I see no reason to decline the prayer made in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The period of mandate available to the Arbitrator is extended by six months from the date of passing of this order.

¶27

It is clarified that the respondent No.1National Highways Authority of India, shall be at liberty to resist the claim of the petitioner before Arbitrator with respect to payment of interest/penalty, if any, arising on account of delay in conclusion of the proceedings.

¶28

The petition, is accordingly, disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.

¶29

Pending miscellaneous applications, (if any),

¶30

shall also stand disposed of.

¶31

15^th June, 2024

¶32

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶33

(sushma)

Bhole Nath v. NHAI and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhole Nath v. NHAI and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rax Pal Vs State of Hp and Others

Gaurav Thakur Vs Joint Registrar (Marketing) Cooperative Societies and Others

Hp Secretariate and Other Affiliated Pensioners Welfare Association Vs State of Hp and Others

Chandermani Vs NHAI and Ors.

Nesha Ram Vs NHAI and Ors.

Shakuntal Devi Vs NHAI and Ors.