Kailash Sharma and Others v. NHAI and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC3 May 2024ARB.C/542/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 29A Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 extension of time; termination of arbitrator mandate; Section 29A(4) recourse; Section 3G National Highways Act compensation reference; Reference Petition No.63/2018; Divisional Commissioner Shimla as Arbitrator; six-month extension of mandate; appearance before Arbitrator 08.05.2024; Kailash Sharma v UOI; High Court of Himachal Pradesh Shimla; Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua; decided 03.05.2024; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Six-month extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator (Divisional Commissioner, Shimla) to decide the petition under reference; parties directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on 08.05.2024; all rights and contentions of the parties left open. ¶¶16

Kailash Sharma and Others Vs NHAI and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether, the mandate of the learned Arbitrator (Divisional Commissioner, Shimla) adjudicating Reference Petition No.63/2018 having terminated on expiry of the Section 29A(1) and Section 29A(3) periods of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the time for pronouncing the award should be extended.

¶¶11

Court's answer

The petitioners have made out a case for extending the period for deciding the arbitration proceedings by six months, and the Court ordered accordingly.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

The mandate of the learned Arbitrator in deciding the petition under reference is extended by six months from the date of the judgment; the parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on 08.05.2024; all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be adjudicated by the learned Arbitrator.

¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration Case No. 542/2024 (HPHC, decided 03.05.2024): The petitioners' Reference Petition No.63/2018 under Section 3G of the National Highways Act lay pending adjudication before the learned Arbitrator, the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. The twelve-month period under Section 29A(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for passing the award had elapsed, the Section 29A(3) period was also over, and the Arbitrator had closed the proceedings on termination of his mandate. Noting that in similar matters Courts had taken recourse to Section 29A(4) of the Act to extend the period by six months, and finding that the petitioners had made out a case for extension, the Court (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) extended the mandate of the learned Arbitrator by six months, directed the parties to appear before him on 08.05.2024, left all rights and contentions open, and disposed of the petition along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Arbitration Case No. 542/2024 Decided on: 03.05.2024

¶3

Kailash Sharma & Ors. …..Petitioners Versus

¶4

UOI & Ors. ....Respondents.

¶5

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

¶6

For the petitioner	:	Mr. Parikshit Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents	:	Mr. Vir Bahadur Verma, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No.1.
		Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate vice Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
		Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.3 & 4.

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

¶8

Notice. Mr. Vir Bahadur Verma, learned Central

¶9

Government Counsel, Ms. Sneh Bhimta, learned vice counsel and Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 and 3 & 4, respectively.

¶10

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

¶11

It is not in dispute that a Reference Petition bearing No.63/2018 preferred by the petitioners under Section 3G of the National Highways Act is pending adjudication before the learned 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 08.05.2024 . All rights and

¶14

contentions of the parties are left open to be adjudicated by the

¶15

learned Arbitrator.

¶16

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so

¶17

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

¶18

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶19

03^rd May, 2024 (rohit)

Kailash Sharma and Others v. NHAI and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Sharma and Others 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

Bhajan Dass Vs the State of Hp and Others

Usha Devi Vs Sant Ram

Salman Vs State of Hp

Puran Chand Vs Mohan

Roshan Lal Vs NHAI and Others

Ram Chand Vs Amar Singh