Rajnish Kumar Vs UOI and Others — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

Rajnish Kumar Vs UOI and Others — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Extension of time for completion of arbitration: the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. was directed to conclude the arbitral proceedings and pass the arbitral award in Arbitration Reference Case No. 352 of 2022 on or before 19th November, 2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the time for completion of the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Reference Case No. 352 of 2022, pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala acting as Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956, should be extended under Section 29(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. +1 more

Court's answer

The Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956, was directed to conclude the arbitral proceedings and to pass the arbitral award in Arbitration Reference Case No. 352 of 2022 on or before 19th November, 2026.

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings were conducted by the learned Arbitrator in violation of the statutory provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; where a statute envisages an authority/Arbitrator to perform a task within a prescribed time schedule, the onus lies on that authority/Arbitrator to do so, and any delay must be bona fide and explainable.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 29(4) - extension of time for completion of arbitral proceedings - National Highways Act, 1956, Section 3 - land acquired in District Kangra, H.P. for National Highway construction; landowner's reference (ARC No. 352 of 2022) pending before Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala as Arbitrator - pleadings completed but Arbitrator closed proceedings as statutory time limit for award had elapsed - Held: onus lies on the Arbitrator to perform within the statutorily prescribed time schedule and delay, if any, must be bona fide and explainable; proceedings conducted in violation of the 1996 Act - time extended; Arbitrator directed to conclude proceedings and pass award on or before 19th November, 2026 - petition disposed of (Romesh Verma, J., oral).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Arbitration Case No. 110 of 2026 Date of decision : 19.05.2026.

Rajnish Kumar

...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ….Respondents. Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 3. Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

Notice.

Mr. Nand Lal Thakur Advocate and Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 3. The present petition under Section 29 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time for completion of the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Reference Case No. 352 of 2022 titled as Rajnish Kumar vs. Union of India and others

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

-2-

pending before the learned Divisional Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956.

4 The arbitral dispute has arisen out of the land acquired in District Kangra, H.P. for the purpose of construction of the National Highway, under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956.

5 Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the competent authority, the landowner has preferred Arbitration Reference Case No. 352 of 2022 before the learned Arbitrator cum-Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, and non adjudication of the arbitral proceedings within the statutory period has resulted in filing of the instant petition.

6 The Reference Petition against the Award was filed by the land owner in the year 2022. According to the petitioner, on account of unforeseen circumstances in the case, which resulted in unnecessary delay in the announcement of the award by the learned Arbitrator, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

7 This Court has gone through the material available on record carefully and finds that the proceedings have been conducted by the learned Arbitrator in violation of statutory provisions, as contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

-3-

This Court is of the view that when a statute envisages an authority, be it an Arbitrator, to do a particular act in a particular manner and in a prescribed time schedule, then the onus is upon the said authority/Arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to it within the time schedule prescribed in the statute. The delay, if any, has to be bonafide and explainable. However, in the present petition even after completion of the pleadings, the learned Arbitrator has closed the proceedings since the time limit for arbitral proceedings to pass an award had elapsed.

8 In view of aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration the attending facts and circumstance of the instant case, the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956 is directed to conclude the arbitral proceedings and to pass the arbitral award in Arbitration Reference Case No. 352 of 2022, on or before 19th November, 2026.

9 The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(Romesh Verma) May 19, 2026 Judge (Veena)