Mamta Vs Land Acquisition Officer Cum Competent… — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

Mamta Vs Land Acquisition Officer Cum Competent… — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Mandate of the learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitral proceedings in Arbitration Case No. 1047 of 2017 extended by six months from the date of the order; liberty to NHAI to agitate its rights in respect of payment of interest during the pendency of arbitral proceedings before the Arbitrator.

Issue for consideration

Whether the period of mandate of the Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 1047 of 2017 should be extended.

Court's answer

None of the parties or the Arbitrator can be faulted for the delay caused in final adjudication of the matter, the delay being attributable to the conditions prevalent consequent to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Ratio / Principle

The mandate of the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceedings is extended by six months from the date of passing of the order.

Key takeaways

Since the arbitral proceedings have been delayed considerably, it will be open for NHAI to agitate its rights in respect of payment of interest during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings before the Arbitrator.ratio¶¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Extension of mandate of Arbitrator – Petition seeking extension of the period of mandate of the Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 1047 of 2017 – Respondents had obtained repeated adjournments for filing reply and the Covid-19 pandemic prevented effective conduct of proceedings for a considerable time – Arbitrator vide order dated 11.01.2023 kept the proceedings in abeyance as his mandate had expired in terms of the provisions of the Act – Held, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case neither the parties nor the Arbitrator could be faulted for the delay in final adjudication; mandate of the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceedings extended by six months from the date of the order; it will be open to NHAI to agitate its rights in respect of payment of interest during the pendency of arbitral proceedings before the Arbitrator – Petition allowed and disposed of accordingly (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Satyen Vaidya J., Arb. Case No. 19 of 2025, decided 23rd June, 2025) (¶¶ 6-12).

( 2025:HHC:19403 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Arb. Case No. 19 of 2025.

Date of decision : 23^rd June, 2025. Mamta ...Petitioner . Versus Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner : Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Addl. A.G., for respondent No.1. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)

By way of this application, a prayer has been made to extend the period of mandate of Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 1047 of 2017.

It is averred that the respondents had got the matter adjourned before the Arbitrator many times for filing reply. It is alsoaverred 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 11.01.2023 kept the proceedings in abeyance on the ground that his

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

-2-

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

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.

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.

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge