Allowed

Lachhman Singh v. Ministry of Road Transport and Highway and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Sept 2024ARB.C/757/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court extended the arbitrator's mandate by six months under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, distinguishing the petitioner's pending case from expired proceedings, and ordered the parties to appear before the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

The mandate of the learned Arbitrator in deciding the petition is extended by six months from today.

Lachhman Singh Vs Ministry of Road Transport and… — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

Arb.Case No.757 of 2024 Decided on: 04.09.2024

¶3

_________________________________________________________________ Lachhman Singh. ....Petitioner Versus Ministry of Road Transport and Highway & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶4

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua,

¶5

1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶6

Notice. Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate and Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, respectively.

¶7

It is not in dispute that a Reference Petition bearing No.44/2022 preferred by the petitioner under Section 3G of the National Highways Act is pending adjudication 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶8

¶9

before the learned Arbitrator, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi (H.P.), 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

on 05.09.2024. All rights and contentions of the parties are

¶14

left open to be adjudicated by the learned Arbitrator.

¶15

The petition stands disposed of in the above

¶16

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

¶17

any.

¶18

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶19

September 4^th , 2024 (Pardeep)

Lachhman Singh v. Ministry of Road Transport and Highway and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lachhman Singh v. Ministry of Road Transport and Highway 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

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another

Rup Lal and Others Vs Kanta Sharma and Others

Sunita Devi Vs Hrtc and Another

Mustkeen and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Garg and Garg Co. Stone Crusher Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajneesh Kumar and Others Vs NHAI and Another