Allowed¶25

Chandermani v. NHAI and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Jun 2024ARB.C/412/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

extension of period of mandate of Arbitrator; Arbitration Case No. 639 of 2018; Section 29 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; COVID-19 delay; completion of pleadings 30.12.2021; land acquisition market value versus Collector's assessment; National Highways Authority of India; six months extension; interest/penalty claims reserved; Chandermani v. N.H.A.I.; Himachal Pradesh High Court; Arb. Case No. 412 of 2024; 2024:HHC:3489; 15.06.2024; Satyen Vaidya

What did the court decide?

Extension of the period of mandate available to the Arbitrator by six months from the date of passing of the order; respondent No.1 (NHAI) expressly left at liberty to contest any interest/penalty claims arising from the delay; pending miscellaneous applications (if any) disposed of. ¶25

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the period of mandate of the Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 639 of 2018 should be extended. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The petition is allowed and the period of mandate available to the Arbitrator is extended by six months from the date of passing of the order.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings before the learned Arbitrator were not delayed on account of negligence of the petitioner or any other stakeholder.

¶24

Key takeaways

Clarification that respondent No.1, National Highways Authority of India, remains at liberty to resist the petitioner's claim before the Arbitrator with respect to payment of interest/penalty, if any, arising on account of delay in conclusion of the proceedings.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Satyen Vaidya, Judge, oral judgment), Arb. Case No. 412 of 2024, decided 15.06.2024 (Neutral Citation 2024:HHC:3489): Petition by Chandermani seeking extension of the period of mandate of the Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 639 of 2018, wherein proceedings (for determination of the market value of acquired land vis-a-vis the Collector's assessment) could not be concluded within the time prescribed under Section 29 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Delay was attributed to circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic, with pleadings completing on 30.12.2021. The Court found no negligence on the part of the petitioner or any stakeholder, and the National Highways Authority of India, despite filing a reply, could point to no special circumstance disentitling the petitioner. Petition allowed; mandate of the Arbitrator extended by six months from the date of the order, with express liberty reserved to respondent No.1 (NHAI) to resist any claim for interest/penalty arising from the delay in conclusion of the proceedings.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:3489 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Arb. Case No. 412 of 2024

¶4

Decided on: 15.06.2024

¶5

Chandermani. .…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. 639 of 2018.

¶16

It is mentioned that though the Arbitrator had entered the reference in the year 2018, a lot of period

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

Pending miscellaneous applications, (if any),

¶29

shall also stand disposed of.

¶30

15^th June, 2024

¶31

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶32

(sushma)

Chandermani v. NHAI and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandermani v. NHAI and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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

Bhole Nath Vs NHAI and Ors.

Nesha Ram Vs NHAI and Ors.

Shakuntal Devi Vs NHAI and Ors.