Allowed¶¶12

Rakesh v. National Highway Authority of India and Another

Arbitration – Extension of mandate of Arbitrator – Delay due to Covid-19 pandemic

Himachal Pradesh HC23 Jun 2025ARB.C/955/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of arbitrator's mandate; Arbitration Case No. 52 of 2017; expiry of mandate under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; proceedings kept in abeyance by order dated 13.03.2023; Covid-19 pandemic delay in arbitration; adjournments sought by respondents (NHAI) for filing reply; six-month extension of mandate; liberty to NHAI on payment of interest; Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; Justice Satyen Vaidya; Arb. Case No. 955 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the learned Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 52 of 2017 extended by six months from the date of the order; NHAI left open to agitate its rights regarding payment of interest during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings before the Arbitrator. ¶¶12

Rakesh Vs National Highway Authority of India and Another — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the period of mandate of the Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 52 of 2017 should be extended. +1 more

¶¶6

Court's answer

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 the order.

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

None of the parties or the Arbitrator can be faulted for the delay caused in final adjudication, as considerable time was lost due to conditions prevalent consequent to the Covid-19 pandemic and a huge pendency of arbitration cases accumulated before the Arbitrator.

¶¶11

Key takeaways

Since the arbitration proceedings have been delayed considerably, NHAI is left free to agitate its rights in respect of payment of interest during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings before the Arbitrator; the question of interest itself is left open to be agitated before the Arbitrator.obiter¶¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration – Extension of mandate of Arbitrator – Delay due to Covid-19 pandemic – High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Satyen Vaidya, Judge) allowed Arb. Case No. 955 of 2024, by which Rakesh prayed for extension of the period of mandate of the Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 52 of 2017. The Arbitrator had, by order dated 13.03.2023, kept the proceedings in abeyance on the ground that his mandate had expired in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondents had earlier obtained adjournments many times for filing reply, and the Covid-19 pandemic had prevented effective proceedings for a considerable period, causing accumulation of a huge pendency of arbitration cases. Holding that none of the parties or the Arbitrator could be faulted for the delay, the Court extended the mandate of the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceedings by six months from the date of the order, leaving NHAI free to agitate its rights regarding payment of interest during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings before the Arbitrator. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶1

( 2025:HHC:19402 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Arb. Case No. 955 of 2024

¶4

Date of decision : 23^rd June, 2025. Rakesh ...Petitioner . Versus National Highway Authority of India & Anr. ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner : Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Addl. A.G., for respondent No.2.

¶5

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)

¶6

By way of this application, a prayer has been made to extend the period of mandate of Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 52 of 2017.

¶7

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 13.03.2023 kept the proceedings in abeyance on the ground that his

¶8

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

¶9

-2-

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

Rakesh v. National Highway Authority of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh v. National Highway Authority of India and Another

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

Vishwa Nath Sharma Vs State of Hp

Primi Devi Vs State of Hp

Krishan Lal Vs Collector Land Acquisition NHAI and Others

Anubhuti Monga Vs Varun Mahajan

Mamta Vs Land Acquisition Officer Cum Competent Authority and Another

Shashi Punga Vs Union of India and Ors.