Allowed¶12

NHAI v. Raj Kumar and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Jul 2026OMPM/269/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Delay of 329 days in filing the appeal condoned; appeal admitted with records to be sent for; operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 and the arbitral award dated 30.05.2023 stayed during the pendency of the appeal, subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest within eight weeks. ¶12

NHAI Vs Raj Kumar and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 329 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 07.03.2025 of the learned District Judge should be condoned. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The application for condonation of delay is allowed; the delay of 329 days in filing the appeal is condoned, it being neither intentional nor willful.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is admitted and the records are directed to be sent for; the appellant's counsel is to supply a copy of the entire paper book to the respondents' counsel during the course of the day.

¶17

Key takeaways

Subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount along with up-to-date interest within eight weeks, the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, as well as the arbitral award dated 30.05.2023, are stayed during the pendency of the appeal.ratio¶23
The stay is conditional upon the appellant/applicant depositing the entire awarded amount along with up-to-date interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

OMP(M) No.269 of 2026 (decided 15.07.2026, Romesh Verma, Judge) — Application by NHAI for condonation of 329 days' delay in filing an appeal against the judgment dated 07.03.2025 of the learned District Judge, Mandi, disposing of objections petitions pertaining to Mohal Dehar arising out of an arbitral award dated 30.05.2023 — Delay attributed to the failure of the applicant's former law firm, M/s M.V. Kini & Co., to intimate the disposal, cases having been withdrawn from the firm vide letters dated 20.09.2023 and 26.03.2024 — Held, the delay was neither intentional nor willful; application allowed and delay condoned — Appeal admitted, records to be sent for — In companion matter OMPST No.3946 of 2026, operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 and the arbitral award dated 30.05.2023 stayed during the pendency of the appeal, subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest within eight weeks.

¶1

NHAI vs. Raj Kumar

¶2

OMP(M) No.269 of 2026

¶3

15.07.2026 Present:

¶4

Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, vice counsel, for the applicant.

¶5

Mr.J.P. Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel, for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶6

Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Addl. A.G., for respondent No.4.

¶7

OMP(M) No.269 of 2026

¶8

The present application has been filed for condonation of 329 days’ delay in filing the present appeal. It has been averred that the impugned judgment was passed by learned District Judge on 07.03.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant had applied for certified copy of impugned judgment on 12.06.2025 and the same was delivered on 20.06.2025. 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.

¶9

Earlier also, due to inefficiency and lackadaisical attitude of the law firm, namely, M/s M.V. Kini & Co., cases were withdrawn from the law firm vide letters dated 20.09.2023 and 26.03.2024. On Closing of the financial year, the applicant inquired from the law firm about the pendency of the cases in various Forums, and it is only then, it came to the knowledge of the applicant that the

¶10

objections petitions pertaining to Mohal Dehar were disposed of. Due to the failure of the counsel/ law firm to apprise the status of these cases decided by the court below, there has been a delay in filing the appeal.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶13

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

¶14

Arb. Appeal No._______ of 2026

¶15

Appeal be registered.

Heard.

Admit .

Send for records.

List in due course.

Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to supply copy of the entire paper book to the learned counsel for the respondents during the course of the day.

¶21

OMPST No.3946 of 2026

¶22

Be registered. Heard

¶23

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 order dated 07.03.2025, as passed by learned District Judge, Mandi as well as arbitral award dated 30.05.2023 during the pendency of appeal is ordered to be stayed.

¶24

Application stands disposed of.

¶25

( Romesh Verma ) Judge

¶26

July 15, 2026 (vt)

NHAI v. Raj Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

NHAI v. Raj Kumar 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

NHAI Vs Ram Krishan and Others

Rameshwar Mahadev Mandir Vs Jaspal Singh Negi

Ravinder Pal Singh Vs Pankaj Chandel

Chand Thakur Vs Vinod Kumar Mehta and Another

Sukhwinder Kaur @ Amrit Kaur Vs Ravinder Singh

NHAI Vs Rajesh Kumar and Another