Allowed

Babu Ram and Others v. NHAI and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Jun 2024ARB.C/553/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Arb.Case No.553 of 2024, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the petitioner to extend the arbitrator's mandate by six months. The court held that under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the proceedings are extended to allow the parties to argue their contentions before the learned Arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

The mandate of the learned Arbitrator in deciding the petition is extended by six months from today, with parties directed to appear on 14.06.2024.

Babu Ram and Others Vs NHAI and Another — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

Arb.Case No.553 of 2024

¶3

Decided on: 12^th June, 2024.

¶4

_________________________________________________________________ Babu Ram & Ors.

¶5

....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

National Highway Authority of India & Anr. …Respondents

¶8

________________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua,

¶10

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶11

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. L.N.Sharma, Mr. Dalip Sharma and Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocates General, for respondent No.2.

¶12

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶13

It is not in dispute that a Reference Petition bearing No.62/2017 preferred by the petitioner under Section 3G of the National Highways Act is pending adjudication before the learned Arbitrator, i.e. the Divisional

¶14

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶15

¶16

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 petitioner has prayed for extending the time for pronouncing the award by six months.

¶17

3. 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.

¶18

4. The petitioner has 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 14.06.2024 . All rights and contentions of the parties are

¶19

¶20

left open to be adjudicated by the learned Arbitrator.

¶21

The petition stands disposed of in the above

¶22

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶23

any.

¶24

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶25

June 12, 2024 R.Atal

Babu Ram and Others v. NHAI and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Ram and Others v. NHAI and Another

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

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Javed Vs State of Hp and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Raj Kumar and Others Vs Shakuntla Devi (Deceased through LRs Servesh Singh) and Others

Arud Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

The Hp State Co-Op Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and Another Vs Anjali and Others