Allowed¶20

The A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. v. Hpsebl

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Jul 2026ARB.C/130/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of time for making of award; arbitration A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd vs HPSEB Ltd; Section 11 (6-A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Chief Justice order dated 24.11.2023 appointing arbitrator; Mr. D.K. Sharma, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.), sole Arbitrator; listing before arbitrator 26.05.2026; respondent consented; six-month extension granted from 10.07.2026; petition allowed and disposed of; Judge Romesh Verma (Oral).

What did the court decide?

Time to conclude the arbitration proceedings (making of the award) extended by six months from 10.07.2026; petition and pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶20

The A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. Vs Hpsebl — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

2026:HHC:28235

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Arb. Case No. 130 of 2026

¶4

Date of decision: 10.07.2026.

¶5

A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. ...Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

HPSEB Ltd. ...Respondent.

¶8

Coram:

¶9

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

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate.

¶12

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):

¶13

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking extension of time for making of award by six months in the arbitration inter-se A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd.

¶14

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 24.11.2023 allowed the application filed under Section 11 (6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute inter-se the parties.

¶15

Mr. D.K. Sharma, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) was appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between

¶16

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

¶17

-2-

¶18

the parties. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was listed before the sole Arbitrator on 26.05.2026, when the petitioner was directed to file an appropriate application for extension of time.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in case the application is allowed and the time is extended by six more months to adjudicate the dispute inter-se the parties.

¶20

In view of the averments as made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit the petition is allowed. The time to conclude the arbitration proceedings is extended for six months from today.

¶21

The petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶22

(Romesh Verma) Judge

¶23

10^th July, 2026.

¶24

(kck)

The A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. v. Hpsebl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. v. Hpsebl

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

Om Prakash Garg (deceased) through LRs and Another Vs Rakesh Kapila

Govind Alias Govind Ram Vs UOI and Others

Thakur Chand Vs Sneh Lata

Ashwani Sood Vs Municipal Corporation Shimla

Dev Raj Kapta Vs Puran Chand and Another

Dev Raj Kapta Vs Praveen and Others