Disposed

Roshan Lal v. NHAI and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC3 May 2024ARB.C/541/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition compensation reference pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla as arbitrator; the Section 29A mandate had elapsed and proceedings were closed. The High Court extended the arbitrator's mandate by six months via Section 29A(4) and directed parties to appear before the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of arbitrator extended by six months from 03.05.2024; parties directed to appear before arbitrator on 06.05.2024.

Roshan Lal Vs NHAI and Others — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Arbitration Case No. 541/2024 Decided on: 03.05.2024

¶3

Roshan Lal …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

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

¶6

…………………………………………………………………………………….. Coram

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. Harish Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate vice Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2.

¶9

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

¶10

Notice. Ms. Sneh Bhimta, learned vice counsel and Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, appear

¶11

and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, respectively.

¶12

It is not in dispute that a Reference Petition bearing No.475/2018 preferred by the petitioners under Section 3G of the National Highways Act is pending adjudication before the learned

¶13

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

¶14

Arbitrator, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. The period of 12 months in terms of Section 29A(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the Act’), available to the learned Arbitrator for passing the award stands elapsed. The period specified under Section 29A(3) of the Act is also over, hence, the learned Arbitrator has closed the proceedings in view of termination of his mandate. In these circumstances, the petitioners have prayed for extending the time for pronouncing the award by six months.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel on both sides and considered the case file. It has been informed that in similar matters, taking recourse to Section 29A(4) of the Act, the Courts have extended the period for passing the award by six months.

¶16

The petitioners have made out a case for extending the period for deciding the arbitration proceedings by six months. Ordered accordingly. The mandate of learned Arbitrator in deciding the petition under reference is extended by six months from today. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on 06.05.2024 . All rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be adjudicated by the learned Arbitrator.

¶17

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so

¶18

also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶19

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶20

03^rd May, 2024 (rohit)

Roshan Lal v. NHAI and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal v. NHAI and Others

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

Bhajan Dass Vs the State of Hp and Others

Usha Devi Vs Sant Ram

Salman Vs State of Hp

Puran Chand Vs Mohan

Kailash Sharma and Others Vs NHAI and Ors.

Ram Chand Vs Amar Singh