NHAI and Another Vs Puran Singh and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

NHAI and Another Vs Puran Singh and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay in filing the appeal condoned (156 days as per application; 171 days as per Registry report); appeal directed to be registered and admitted; execution of the award dated 28.03.2024 passed in Case No.586/2018 stayed during pendency of the appeal, subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest within eight weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the accompanying arbitration appeal - stated as 156 days in the application and reported as 171 days by the Registry - should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. +1 more

Court's answer

The condonation-of-delay application is allowed and the delay in filing the main appeal is condoned.

Ratio / Principle

A liberal approach is to be adopted in dealing with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the matter should be decided on merits and not on the basis of technicalities.

Key takeaways

As the averments in the condonation application, supported by the affidavit of the Project Director, NHAI, remained uncontroverted, further adjournment for filing of reply by respondent No.2 was not justifiable and its right to file reply was closed by order of the Court.ratio¶¶8
Execution of the award dated 28.03.2024, passed in Case No.586/2018 by the Divisional Commissioner exercising the powers of Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956, is stayed during the pendency of the appeal, subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount together with up-to-date interest within eight weeks.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay granted: delay of 156 days as pleaded (reported as 171 days by the Registry) in filing the arbitration appeal was condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The averments attributing the delay to administrative exigencies, supported by the affidavit of the Project Director, NHAI, remained uncontroverted, as respondent No.1 did not appear despite notice and respondent No.2 filed no reply despite opportunity; the Court held that a liberal approach must be adopted and the matter decided on merits and not on technicalities. The appeal was directed to be registered and admitted. Separately, execution of the award dated 28.03.2024, passed in Case No.586/2018 by the Divisional Commissioner exercising the powers of Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956, was stayed during the pendency of the appeal, subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount together with up-to-date interest within a period of eight weeks.

NHAI versus Puran Singh & Another

Arb. Appeal No. of 2026

17.07.2026 Present: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for the applicant.

None for respondent No.1.

Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Ranjna Patial and Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.2.

OMP (M) No.109 of 2026

On 19.06.2026, in pursuance of the notice issued to respondent No.1, he has not bothered to put appearance and the matter was adjourned for today, to enable respondent No.2 to file reply to the application.

Reply, on behalf of respondent No.2 not filed. Further adjournment for this purpose is not justifiable and the right of respondent No.2, to file reply is closed by the order of the Court.

By way of the present application, a prayer has been made to condone the delay, as occurred, in filing the accompanying appeal, which, as per the application is 156 days and as per the report of the Registry, is delay of 171 days.

The delay has mainly been sought to be condoned on the ground of administrative exigencies in preferring the accompanying appeal, within the prescribed

period of limitation. The averments, as made, in the application, are duly supported by the affidavit of the Project Director, NHAI, which remain uncontroverted, as despite notice, today, no one has put appearance on behalf of respondent No.1, whereas, no reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2, despite opportunity granted.

In such situation, when the averments, as made in the application remain uncontroverted, this Court is of the view that liberal approach has to be adopted while dealing with the application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as, the matter should be decided on merits and not on the basis of technicalities.

Considering all these facts, the application under consideration is allowed and the delay, as occurred, in filing the main appeal, is ordered to be condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

Arb. Appeal No. of 2026

Be registered.

Admit .

OMPST No.40570 of 2026

The application is considered and allowed.

During the pendency of the appeal, the execution of the award dated 28.03.2024, passed in Case No.586/2018, by

the Divisional Commissioner, exercising the powers of Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956, is ordered to be stayed, subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount, together with upto date interest, within a period of eight weeks. The application is disposed of. Modification/alteration/vacation on motion.

(Virender Singh) Judge

July 17, 2026 (ps)