Disposed¶21

Sushil Kumar and Others v. NHAI and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Jul 2026ARB.C/132/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of time for arbitral proceedings; Section 29-A(4)(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Section 3 National Highways Act 1956 arbitrator; Divisional Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator Shimla; land acquisition for National Highway award; Arbitration Reference Case No. 144 of 2024; proceedings closed after time limit elapsed; deadline 14th January 2027; Himachal Pradesh High Court.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time effected by direction to the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, H.P. to conclude the arbitral proceedings and pass the arbitral award in Arbitration Reference Case No.144/2024 on or before 14th January, 2027. ¶21

Sushil Kumar and Others Vs NHAI and Others — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether extension of time should be granted for completion of the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Reference Case No. 144 of 2024 pending before the Divisional Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, Shimla. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, H.P., exercising powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956, is directed to conclude the arbitral proceedings and pass the arbitral award in Arbitration Reference Case No.144/2024 on or before 14th January, 2027.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The arbitral proceedings in Arbitration Reference Case No. 144 of 2024 were conducted by the Arbitrator in violation of statutory provisions contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶18

Key takeaways

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, the onus is upon the said authority/Arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to it within the time schedule prescribed in the statute, and any delay must be bonafide and explainable.ratio¶19
In the present petition, even after completion of the pleadings, the Arbitrator closed the proceedings since the time limit for arbitral proceedings to pass an award had elapsed.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration Case No. 132 of 2026, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (decision dated 15.07.2026, Romesh Verma, Judge, oral): Petition under Section 29-A (4) (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by Sushil Kumar Verma and others seeking extension of time for completion of arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Reference Case No. 144 of 2024 pending before the Divisional Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, Shimla, arising from acquisition of land in District Shimla under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Court found the proceedings had been conducted in violation of statutory provisions; held that where a statute prescribes a time schedule the onus lies on the authority/Arbitrator to perform within it and delay must be bonafide and explainable; observed that even after completion of pleadings the Arbitrator had closed the proceedings as the time limit had elapsed; and directed the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla to conclude the proceedings and pass the award on or before 14th January, 2027. Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Arbitration Case No. 132 of 2026 Date of decision : 15.07.2026.

¶3

Sushil Kumar Verma and others ...Petitioners. Versus

¶4

National Highway Authority of India & others

¶5

...Respondents.

¶6

Coram:

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the Petitioners: Ms. Muskan, Advocate vice Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate vice Ms.Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1

¶9

Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.2 to 4/State.

¶10

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

¶11

The present petition under Section 29-A (4) (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioners seeking extension of time for completion of the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Reference Case No. 144 of 2024, titled as Sushil Kumar Verma and others vs NHAI and others, pending before the Divisional Commissioner-cumArbitrator at Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., exercising the

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956.

¶15

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

¶16

3 Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the competent authority, the land owner has preferred Arbitration Reference Case No.144/2024 before the Arbitrator cumDivisional Commissioner at Shimla, District Shimla and non adjudication of the arbitral proceedings within the statutory period has resulted in filing of the instant petition.

¶17

4 The Reference Petition against the Award was filed by the land owner in the year 2023. According to the petitioners, on account of unforeseen circumstances in the case, has resulted in unnecessary delay in the announcement of the award by the learned Arbitrator, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, District Shimla, HP.

¶18

5 This Court has gone through the material available on record carefully and finds that the proceedings have been conducted by the Arbitrator in violation of statutory provisions, as contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This

¶19

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 Arbitrator has closed the proceedings since the time limit for arbitral proceedings to pass an award had elapsed.

¶20

6 In view of aforesaid discussions and taking into consideration the attending facts and circumstance of the instant case, the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, 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.144/2024, on or before 14^th January, 2027.

¶21

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

¶22

terms.

¶23

July 15, 2026 (Nisha)

¶24

(Romesh Verma) Judge

Sushil Kumar and Others v. NHAI and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar and Others v. NHAI and Others

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

NHAI Vs Ram Krishan and Others

Rameshwar Mahadev Mandir Vs Jaspal Singh Negi

Ravinder Pal Singh Vs Pankaj Chandel

Chand Thakur Vs Vinod Kumar Mehta and Another

Sukhwinder Kaur @ Amrit Kaur Vs Ravinder Singh

NHAI Vs Rajesh Kumar and Another