Disposed¶8

Mohan Singh and Ors. v. NHAI and Anr.

Arbitration – extension of time

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Jul 2026CMPMO/726/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HP High Court, Shimla; CMPMO No.726 of 2025; Article 227 Constitution of India; extension of time for arbitration; Arbitration Case No. 37 of 2017; National Highways Act, 1956 Section 3 arbitrator; Divisional Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator Shimla; land acquisition for National Highway in District Shimla; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 statutory timeline violation; arbitrator closed proceedings after limitation elapsed; direction to conclude proceedings and pass award by 21.01.2027; petition disposed; Justice Romesh Verma; decision date 21.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Extension effectively granted by direction: the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, is to conclude the arbitral proceedings and pass the arbitral award in Arbitration Case No. 37 of 2017 on or before 21.01.2027. ¶8

Mohan Singh and Ors. Vs NHAI and Anr. — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether extension of time ought to be granted for completion of the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Case No. 37 of 2017, which remained unadjudicated beyond the statutory period.

¶1

Court's answer

The arbitral proceedings were conducted by the Arbitrator in violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Where a statute envisages an authority, be it an Arbitrator, to do a particular act in a particular manner and within a prescribed time schedule, the onus is upon that authority/Arbitrator to perform the entrusted task within the prescribed time schedule, and any delay must be bonafide and explainable.

¶6

Key takeaways

The Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, exercising powers under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956, is directed to conclude the arbitral proceedings and pass the arbitral award in Arbitration Case No. 37 of 2017 on or before 21.01.2027.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration — extension of time — petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking extension of time for completion of arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Case No. 37 of 2017 arising out of land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 (Section 3), before the Divisional Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, Shimla. Held: the proceedings were conducted in violation of the statutory provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; where a statute prescribes a time schedule for an authority/Arbitrator, the onus lies on that authority to perform within it and any delay must be bonafide and explainable; despite completion of pleadings the Arbitrator had closed the proceedings since the time limit for passing an award had elapsed. The Arbitrator was directed to conclude the proceedings and pass the award on or before 21.01.2027. Petition disposed of (Romesh Verma, J., oral), decided 21.07.2026.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CMPMO No.726 of 2025 Date of decision:21.07.2026

¶3

Mohan Singh(deceased) through LRs & others ...Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

National Highway Authority of India & another ...Respondents.

¶6

Coram:

¶7

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

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the petitioner : Kanwar Bhupinder Singh, Advocate.

¶10

For the respondents : Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2.

¶12

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral):

¶13

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking extension of time for completion of the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Case No. 37 of 2017, titled as Mohan Singh & others vs. National Highway Authority of India, pending before the Divisional Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator for National Highway Authority of India, H.P., exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956.

¶14

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

¶15

-2-

¶16

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.

¶17

Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the competent authority, the landowners have preferred Arbitration Case No. 37 of 2017, 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.

¶18

The Reference Petition against the Award was filed by the land owners in the year 2017. According to the petitioners, on account of unforeseen circumstances in the case, which resulted into unnecessary delay in the announcement of the award by the Arbitrator, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.

¶19

Mr. Karan Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1, submits that the present petition was filed in the year 2025, which is highly belated stage since the impugned order was passed on 14.03.2023 by the Divisional Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator.

¶20

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

¶21

-3-

¶22

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.

¶23

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. 37 of 2017, on or before 21.01.2027.

¶24

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶25

(Romesh Verma) Judge

¶26

21^st July, 2026. ( vt )

Mohan Singh and Ors. v. NHAI and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Singh and Ors. v. NHAI and Anr.

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

Beli Ram Vs Rachna and Another

NHAI Vs Hoshiar Singh and Others

NHAI Vs Sunder

Amit Sharma Vs Nipun Jindal

Tarsem Chand Vs Naresh Kumari and Another

NHAI Vs Rattan Lal and Another