Allowed¶9

NHAI v. Sanjay Kumar and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 May 2026OMPM/77/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NHAI vs. Sanjay Kumar; OMP(M) No.77 of 2026; decided 18.05.2026 by Romesh Verma, Judge; condonation of delay; 378 days delay; arbitration appeal; ARBAST No. 77047 of 2025; impugned judgment by learned District Judge dated 02.12.2024; certified copy applied 11.03.2025, delivered 07.05.2025; record procured July 2025; legal opinion sought; counsel's accident and bed rest; no objection by respondents' counsel; application allowed; appeal registered; record requisitioned.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 378 days in filing the appeal granted; application allowed and disposed of; appeal ordered to be registered and record requisitioned. ¶9

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

¶1

NHAI vs. Sanjay Kumar

¶2

OMP(M) No.77 of 2026

¶3

18.05.2026

¶4

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

¶5

Mr. Hemant vaid, Advocate,, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶6

Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.5

¶7

The present application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. It has been averred in the application that the impugned judgment was passed by the learned District Judge on 02.12.2024 and the certified copy of the judgment was applied by the counsel on 11.03.2025. It has been averred in the application that the certified copy of the judgment was completed on 11.04.2025 and delivered on 07.05.2025. Copy of the record was finally procured in the month of July, 2025 and legal opinion was sought as to determine the future course of the action. After obtaining legal opinion, the matter was reviewed and it was decided to assail the judgment as passed by the learned District Judge. It has further been averred that the counsel for the applicant unfortunately met with an accident and was advised complete bed rest by the attending doctor for a considerable period. Due to his medial condition and consequent physical incapacity , the counsel could not prepare and file the present appeal within the prescribed period. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that

¶8

the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful and the same has occurred due to unavoidable circumstances, which were beyond the control of the applicant/appellant.

¶9

Keeping in view the averments as made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit and keeping in view of the fact that the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection in case delay is condoned, the present application is allowed and the delay of 378 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

¶10

Application stands disposed off.

¶11

Arb. Appeal No._______2026 (ARBAST No. 77047 of 2025)

¶12

Appeal be registered.

¶13

Mr. Hemant Vaid, Advocate, and Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate, have put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and for respondent No.5. respectively.

¶14

Record be requisitioned.

¶15

List for consideration immediately after receipt of

¶16

the record.

¶17

( Romesh Verma) Judge

¶18

May 18, 2026 ( veena)

NHAI v. Sanjay Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

NHAI v. Sanjay 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

State of Hp Vs Paramjit Singh and Ors.

Umesh Dutt Vs Nipun Jindal and Another

Kamlesh Kumar and Ors. Vs UOI and Others

Om Parkash Vs State of Hp

National Highway Authority of India Vs Sukh Ram and another

NHAI Vs Rama Devi Alias Rama Dai and Anr.