Disposed¶26

Preet Mohinder Singh v. NHAI and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Mar 2026ARB.C/34/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of time for arbitration under S.29-A(4)(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Arbitrator functioning under S.3, National Highways Act 1956 (Divisional Commissioner, Shimla); land-acquisition compensation reference (Arbitration Case No. 115/2023) concerning land acquired in District Solan for National Highway (NHAI); time limit for passing arbitral award elapsed after completion of pleadings; proceedings found conducted in violation of statutory provisions; Arbitrator directed to conclude proceedings and pass award by 12.09.2026; single-judge Bench (Romesh Verma, J.).

What did the court decide?

Extension of time granted: the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla is directed to conclude the arbitral proceedings in Arbitration Case No.115/2023 and pass the arbitral award on or before 12th September, 2026. ¶26

Preet Mohinder Singh Vs NHAI and Others — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of time for completion of the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Case No. 115/2023 under Section 29-A(4)(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

When a statute envisages an authority/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.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings in Arbitration Case No. 115/2023 were conducted by the Arbitrator in violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶21

Key takeaways

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¶23
The Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, exercising powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956, is directed to conclude the arbitral proceedings in Arbitration Case No.115/2023 and to pass the arbitral award on or before 12th September, 2026.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition under Section 29-A(4)(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by a landowner seeking extension of time for completion of arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Case No. 115/2023, arising from acquisition of land in District Solan under the National Highways Act, 1956 for National Highway construction, pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, acting as Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956. Held: the proceedings were conducted by the Arbitrator in violation of the statutory provisions of the 1996 Act; even after completion of pleadings the Arbitrator had closed the proceedings as the time limit for passing an award had elapsed; where a statute prescribes a time schedule the onus lies on the authority/Arbitrator to perform within it and any delay must be bonafide and explainable. The Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla was directed to conclude the proceedings and pass the award on or before 12th September, 2026; petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2026:HHC:6971

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

Arb. Case No. 34/2026 Decided on: 12.03.2026

¶4

Preet Mohinder Singh …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

National Highway Authority of India & ors. ….Respondents

¶7

Coram:

¶8

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

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioners: Mr. Kuldeep Singh Chandel, Advocate.

¶11

For the Respondents: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate,for respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.2.

¶13

Mr. Baldev Negi, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 3 & 4/State.

¶14

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

¶15

The present petition under Section 29-A (4) (5) 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 Case No. 115/2023, titled as Preet Mohinder vs. NHAI & ors., pending before the Divisional Commissioner Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.,

¶16

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶17

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

¶18

2 The arbitral dispute has arisen out of the land acquired in District Solan, 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.

¶19

3 Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the competent authority, the landowner has preferred Arbitration Case No.115/2023, before the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, and non adjudication of the arbitral proceedings within the statutory period has resulted in filing of the instant petition.

¶20

4 The Reference Petition against the Award was filed by the land owner in the year 2023. 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 Arbitrator, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.

¶21

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 Court is of the view that when a statute envisages an authority,

¶22

¶23

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.

¶24

6 In view of aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration the attending facts and circumstance of the instant case, the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, District 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 Case No.115/2023, on or before

¶25

12^th September, 2026.

¶26

7 The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

¶27

terms.

¶28

(pankaj)

Preet Mohinder Singh v. NHAI and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preet Mohinder Singh 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

Ramesh Chand and Ors. Vs Mehar Chand and Anr.

Karam Chand Vs Raftar Thakur and Anr.

Hspebl and Others Vs Raghuvir Singh and Others

Sukhdev Vs Block Development Officer

Arun Sharma Vs Sushma Devi

M/S Oasis Enterprises Vs State of Hp and Others