Disposed¶15

NHAI v. Ram Krishan and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC14 Jul 2026OMPM/268/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; arbitration appeal; NHAI vs. Ram Krishan and others; OMP(M) No. 268 of 2026; ARBAST No. 3925/2026; OMPST 4020/26; stay of arbitral award dated 30.05.2023 and District Judge Mandi H.P. judgment dated 02.01.2025 in CIS Registration No. 71 of 2024; conditional stay on deposit of entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest; M/s M.V. Kini & Co.; ex parte respondent No.1; Romesh Verma, Judge; 14.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the appeal condoned; appeal admitted with post-admission notice to respondent No.1 (returnable within four weeks) and record requisitioned; execution, implementation and operation of the impugned award dated 30.05.2023 and the judgment dated 02.01.2025 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 Ram Krishan and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the applicant/appellant (NHAI) should be condoned. +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

The application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the application being supported by an affidavit and unopposed by the non-applicants' counsel.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is admitted; post-admission notice is to be issued to respondent No.1, returnable within four weeks on taking steps within three days, and the record is to be requisitioned in the meantime.

¶20

Key takeaways

Execution, implementation and operation of the impugned award dated 30.05.2023 and the judgment dated 02.01.2025 shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal, subject to the applicant/appellant depositing the entire awarded amount alongwith up-to-date interest within eight weeks.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Order dated 14.07.2026 by Romesh Verma, Judge, in OMP(M) No. 268 of 2026 (NHAI vs. Ram Krishan and others): (i) application for condonation of delay in filing the arbitration appeal allowed — the disposal of the case by judgment dated 02.01.2025 was never intimated to the appellant by its counsel (cases having earlier been withdrawn from M/s M.V. Kini & Co. vide letters dated 20.09.2023), and the applicant learnt of the disposal only upon closing of financial year 2024–2025; the application, supported by affidavit, faced no objection from the non-applicants; (ii) the appeal (registered as ARBAST No. 3925/2026) was admitted, with post-admission notice to respondent No.1 — who stood proceeded against ex parte — returnable within four weeks, and the record requisitioned; (iii) execution, implementation and operation of the impugned arbitral award dated 30.05.2023 and of the judgment dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. in CIS Registration No. 71 of 2024 were stayed during the pendency of the appeal, subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount alongwith up-to-date interest within eight weeks.

¶1

NHAI vs. Ram Krishan and others

¶2

OMP(M) No. 268 of 2026

¶3

14.07.2026

¶4

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

¶5

Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶6

OMP(M) No. 268 of 2026

¶7

In sequel to order dated 21.05.2026, it has been reported that respondent No.1 stands duly served, but none has put in appearance on his behalf. Hence, respondent No.1 proceeded against ex parte.

¶8

It is averred in the application that the certified copy of the judgment dated 02.01.2025 was applied on 14.01.2025, and the same was delivered on 24.02.2025.However, the disposal of the case was not within the knowledge of the appellant/applicant, as the same was never intimated to the appellant by its counsel.

¶9

Earlier also, due to the inefficiency and lackadaisical attitude of the law firm/counsel, cases were withdrawn from the said law firm, namely, M/s M.V. Kini & Co., vide letters dated 20.09.2023.

¶10

It is stated that the applicant was under the bona fide belief that the instant case was pending. It came to the knowledge of the applicant only upon closing of the

¶11

financial year 2024–2025 that the objection petition pertaining to this Muhal had been disposed of.

¶12

Thereafter, prompt action was taken to obtain the entire case file, and the present appeal was filed immediately. The delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond the control of the present applicants.

¶13

The learned counsel for the non-applicants have no objection, in case the present application is allowed.

¶14

In view of the averments as made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit and keeping in view the fact that the learned counsel for the non-applicants have no objection, the present application is allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶15

Application stands disposed of.

¶16

Arb. Appeal No.____/2026 (ARBAST No. 3925/2026)

¶17

Appeal be registered.

¶18

Heard.

¶19

Admit.

¶20

Issue post admission notice to respondent No.1, returnable within four weeks, on taking steps within three days.

¶21

In the meantime, record be requisitioned.

¶22

OMP No. _____of 2026 (OMPST 4020/26)

¶23

Application be registered.

¶24

Subject to deposit of entire awarded amount alongwith up-to-date interest by the applicant/appellant, execution, implementation and operation of impugned award dated 30.05.2023, passed by learned Arbitrator and judgment dated 02.01.2025, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. in CIS Registration No. 71 of 2024, shall remain stayed during the pendency of appeal. Needful be done within eight weeks from today.

¶25

Application stands disposed off.

¶26

(Romesh Verma) Judge

¶27

July 14, 2026 ( Nisha)

NHAI v. Ram Krishan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

NHAI v. Ram Krishan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bam Dev and Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar

Sher Singh Vs Nipun Jindal and Another

Balwant Singh and Others Vs Ramesh Chand (Deceased through LRs Renu and Others)

State of Hp and Others Vs Bhagat Singh

UOI and Another Vs Sukh Ram and Another

Bhim Dutt and Anr. Vs M/S Shriram Transport Finance Ltd.