Allowed

Rajneesh Kumar and Others v. NHAI and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Oct 2024ARB.C/698/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought extension of the Arbitrator's mandate under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act due to pandemic-induced delays. The Single Judge allowed the prayer, extending the mandate by six months and permitting the respondent to claim interest during pendency.

What did the court decide?

Extension of the Arbitrator's mandate by six months from the date of this order; permission for NHAI to agitate rights regarding interest during pendency.

Rajneesh Kumar and Others Vs NHAI and Another — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:9896 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Arb. Case No. 698 of 2024

¶4

Date of decision : 18.10.2024.

¶5

Rajneesh Kumar & others ...Petitioners.

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

Coram:

¶9

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

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioners : Mr. G. R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Gobind Korla, Addl. A.G., for respondent No.2.

¶11

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)

¶12

By way of this application, a prayer has been made to extend the period of mandate of Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 258 of 2019.

¶13

It is averred that the respondents had got the matter adjourned before the Arbitrator many times for filing reply. It is also averred that due to Covid-19 pandemic the proceedings could not be effectively undertaken by the Arbitrator for considerable period of time. The Arbitrator ultimately vide order dated 27.12.2022 kept the proceedings in abeyance on the ground that his mandate had

¶14

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

¶15

-2-

¶16

expired in terms of the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶17

Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1. Factual aspect could be denied by the respondents. Evidently, a lot of time elapsed and was wasted due to the condition prevalent consequent to Covid-19 Pandemic. It also appears that due to said reason a huge pendency of arbitration cases got accumulated before the Arbitrator. In such circumstances, none of the parties or Arbitrator can be faulted for the delay caused in final adjudication of the matter.

¶18

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the mandate of the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceedings is extended by six months from the date of passing of this order. Since, the proceedings in the arbitration have been delayed considerably, it will be open for NHAI to agitate its rights in respect of payment of interest during the pendency of arbitral proceedings before the Arbitrator. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Rajneesh Kumar and Others v. NHAI and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh Kumar 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

Arun Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Vinay Modi and others Vs State of Hp and others

Vinay Modi Vs State of hP and others

NHAI Vs Bangalu

Khem Chand Vs NHAI and Another

Narender Kumar Vs NHAI and Another