NHAI Vs Suman Lal and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

NHAI Vs Suman Lal and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 390 days in filing the appeal condoned and application allowed; appeal to be registered and admitted with records summoned and post-admission notice to respondent No.1 returnable within four weeks; operation, implementation and execution of the impugned judgment dated 02.12.2024 and the arbitral award dated 18.04.2023 stayed during pendency of appeal, subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest within eight weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 390 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 02.12.2024 of the learned District Judge, Mandi should be condoned. +2 more

Court's answer

The application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay of 390 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Ratio / Principle

Operation, implementation and execution of the impugned judgment dated 02.12.2024 and the arbitral award dated 18.04.2023 are stayed during the pendency of the appeal, subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest within eight weeks.

Key takeaways

Respondent No.1, having been duly served and with none appearing on his behalf, is proceeded against ex-parte.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NHAI sought condonation of a 390-day delay in filing an arbitration appeal against the judgment dated 02.12.2024 of the learned District Judge, Mandi, whereby objection petitions pertaining to Mohal Palthin, arising from an arbitral award dated 18.04.2023, were disposed of. The delay was attributed to the failure of the applicant's then counsel, M/s M.V. Kini & Co (whose services had been terminated on 20.09.2023 and 26.03.2024), to intimate the disposal; the certified copy was applied for on 11.03.2025 and delivered on 07.05.2025. Respondent No.1 (Suman Lal), though duly served, did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte; respondent No.2, represented by the DAG, raised no objection. By order dated 17.06.2026, Romesh Verma, Judge, allowed the application and condoned the delay, directed registration and admission of the appeal with summons for records, and issued post-admission notice to respondent No.1 returnable within four weeks. In OMPST No. 622 of 2026, the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned judgment and the arbitral award were stayed during the pendency of the appeal, subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest within eight weeks.

NHAI vs. Suman Lal & another

OMP(M) No. 106 of 2026

17.06.2026 Present: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, vice counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Manish Thakur, DAG, for respondent No.2.

In sequel to order dated 30.03.2026, notice

was issued for the service of respondent No.1. As per report of the Registry, the said respondent has been duly served but none has appeared on his behalf. Consequently, the said respondent is proceeded against ex-parte.

The present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 390 days in filing the present appeal. It has been averred that the impugned judgment was passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, on 02.12.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant had applied for certified copy of impugned judgment on 11.03.2025 and the same was delivered on 07.05.2025. However, the disposal of the case was not within the knowledge of the applicant as the same was never intimated to the applicant by its counsel. Earlier also, due to inefficiency and lackadaisical attitude of the said law firm, namely, M/s M.V. Kini & Co, cases were withdrawn from it on 20.09.2023 and 26.03.2024. It is further submitted that the applicant was under

bonafide belief that the instant case is pending before the learned District Judge, Mandi and on closing of the financial year, the applicant inquired from all the counsels/law firms about the pendency of all the cases pending in various forums throughout the State of H.P. and then it has come to the knowledge of the applicant that the objection petitions pertaining to Mohal Palthin have been disposed of. Thereafter, the applicant immediately contacted its counsel in order to procure the certified copy as well as record for preparation of the instant appeal. Therefore, it has been prayed that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful, but the same has occurred due to unavoidable circumstances.

Learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 has no objection in case the application is allowed.

Consequently, in view of the averments as made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit and in view of submissions as made by learned counsel for the applicant, the present application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Accordingly, the application stands

disposed of.

Arb. Appeal No._______/2026

Appeal be registered.

Heard.

Admit .

Send for records.

Issue post admission notice for the service

of respondent No. 1, returnable within four weeks,

on steps being taken within three days.

OMPST No. 622 of 2026

Be registered.

Heard.

Subject to deposit of entire awarded amount along with up-to-date interest by the appellant/ applicant within a period of eight weeks from today, the operation, implementation and execution of impugned judgment dated 02.12.2024, as passed by learned District Judge, Mandi as well as arbitral award dated 18.04.2023, is ordered to be stayed during the pendency of appeal.

Application stands disposed of.

17^th June, 2026 (kck)

(Romesh Verma) Judge