Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 09Th January vs The Competent Authority Of Land on 9 January, 2025
2025:HHC:2999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
Arbitration Case No:1021 of 2023
Decided On : 09th January, 2025
__________________________________________________________
National Highway Authority of India …Petitioner
Versus
The Competent Authority of Land …Respondents
Acquisition-cum-SDO, Nalagarh
& Others
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the petitioner : Mr. S.C. Sharma, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Arvind
Negi, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Prashant Sen,
Deputy Advocate General,
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate,
for respondent No.47.
Mr. Arsh Chauhan,
Advocate, for respondent
No.48.
Respondents No.2 to 14, 16
to 28, 31 to 41, 43, 44, 46 to
48 proceeded ex parte, vide
order dated 20.04.2024.
None for respondents No.4,
6, 43 and 44 though
represented by Mr. Rakesh
K. Thakur, Advocate.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
-2- 2025:HHC:2999
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Petitioner, National Highway Authority of
India, has come up before this Court seeking following
prayers:-
“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in view
of the facts stated above the application may
kindly be allowed and the time limit for
completing the arbitration proceedings in
Arbitration Reference petition No.421/2018
pending before the Ld. Arbitratior-cum-
Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, Camp at
Solan, may kindly be extended for a further
period of six months or any other orders or
directions which this Ld. Court may deem fit
be passed in the interest of justice.”
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Case set-up by Mr. S.C. Sharma, Learned
Senior Counsel, for the petitioner is that pursuant
to the Notification under Section 3A of the National
Highways Act, 1956, the Central Government
published a Notification to acquire the stretch of land
from Kilometer 17/930 to Kilometer 35/312 of
National Highway No.21-A [New National Highway
No.105] for building, widening, maintenance,
management and operation of the said Highway in the
State of Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, the land
belonging to respective shares of respondents No.2 to
-3- 2025:HHC:2999
48, herein, at Mouja Kripalpur, Hadbast No.143,
District Solan [HP] was acquired. The Competent
Authority of Land Acquisition [CALA]/Respondent No.1
i.e. SDO Civil Nalagarh, passed an Award on
06.03.2017 in relation of Village Kripalpur, Hadbast
No.143.
2(i). Feeling aggrieved against the Award dated
06.03.2017 passed by Respondent No.1-CALA, the
petitioners filed reference petition(s) before Learned
Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla
[Camp at Solan, under Section 3G of the National
Highways Act], which was registered as Reference
Petition No.421 of 2018, whereby the Learned
Arbitrator continued the arbitral proceedings, but on
23.05.2023 [Annexure P-1], referred to as the
‘Impugned Order’, the arbitral proceedings were
closed and the mandate of Arbitrator was treated to
have been terminated on the ground that the arbitral
proceedings could not be completed within the lime
schedule as per Section 29A(1) and Section 29A(3) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
-4- 2025:HHC:2999 2(ii). Consequent upon the termination of mandate of Arbitrator and closure of arbitral
proceedings the parties were directed to seek extension
of time for continuance of arbitral proceedings by
invoking the jurisdiction of a competent Court. In the
above background, the petitioner-NHAI, has
approached this Court that due to the passing of order
dated 23.05.2023 [Annexure P-1] the petitioner was left
without any remedy before an Arbitrator coupled with
the fact that delay in completion of arbitral
proceedings was not attributable either to the
petitioners or the claimants-respondents. Moreover,
the delay in completion of arbitral proceedings was
entirely due to administrative reasons which reveal
sufficient cause, for which the parties to arbitration
should not be made to suffer. Moreover, the
termination of arbitral proceedings and termination of
mandate of Arbitrator tends to cause prejudice to the
parties and therefore, in these circumstances, it was
prayed that at least six months time may be granted to
the Learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitral
-5- 2025:HHC:2999
proceedings.
STAND OF RESPONDENTS:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on
10.01.2024 in these proceedings neither the
respondent No.1-CALA-cum-SDO, Civil Nalagarh, nor
the private respondents No.2 to 48 have filed reply to
instant petition despite the fact that respondents were
served. Notably, some of the respondents were
proceeded ex parte.
3(i). Upon listing of case today on 09.01.2025,
learned counsel(s) for the parties jointly represent that
it would be in the interest of justice and the parties
herein that the impugned order dated 23.05.2023
[Annexure P-1] is set-aside with the direction to the
Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner,
Shimla to complete the arbitral proceedings, within a
reasonable time.
4. Heard Mr. S.C. Sharma, Learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Arvind Negi, Advocate, for the
petitioner, Mr. Prashant Sen, Learned State Counsel,
Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent
-6- 2025:HHC:2999
No.47 as well as Mr. Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel
for respondent No.48 and have gone through the case
records.
ANALYSIS:
5. In order to appreciate the claim of the
parties herein, it is necessary to have a recap of the
statutory provision of Section 29A of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as
‘Act’] which reads as under:-
“29A. Time limit for arbitral award —
(1) The award in matters other than
international commercial arbitration shall
be made by the arbitral tribunal within a
period of twelve months from the date of
completion of pleadings under sub-
section (4) of section 23:
Provided that the award in the matter of
international commercial arbitration may be
made as expeditiously as possible and
endeavor may be made to dispose of the
matter within a period of twelve months
from the date of completion of pleadings
under sub-section (4) of section 23.
(2) If the award is made within a period of six
months from the date the arbitral tribunal
enters upon the reference, the arbitral
tribunal shall be entitled to receive such
amount of additional fees as the parties
may agree.
(3) The parties may, by consent, extend the
period specified in sub-section (1) for
making award for a further period not
-7- 2025:HHC:2999
exceeding six months.
(4) If the award is not made within the period
specified in sub-section (1) or the extended
period specified under sub-section (3), the
mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall
terminate unless the Court has, either
prior to or after the expiry of the period
so specified, extended the period:
Provided that while extending the period
under this sub-section, if the Court finds
that the proceedings have been delayed for
the reasons attributable to the arbitral
tribunal, then, it may order reduction of
fees of arbitrator(s) by not exceeding five per
cent. for each month of such delay.
Provided further that where an application
under sub-section (5) is pending, the
mandate of the arbitrator shall continue till
the disposal of the said application:
Provided also that the arbitrator shall be
given an opportunity of being heard before
the fees is reduced.
(5) The extension of period referred to in
sub-section (4) may be on the application
of any of the parties and may be granted
only for sufficient cause and on such
terms and conditions as may be imposed
by the Court.
(6) While extending the period referred to in
sub-section (4), it shall be open to the Court
to substitute one or all of the arbitrators
and if one or all of the arbitrators are
substituted, the arbitral proceedings shall
continue from the stage already reached
and on the basis of the evidence and
material already on record, and the
arbitrator(s) appointed under this section
shall be deemed to have received the said
evidence and material.
(7) In the event of arbitrator(s) being appointed
under this section, the arbitral tribunal
thus reconstituted shall be deemed to be in
-8- 2025:HHC:2999
continuation of the previously appointed
arbitral tribunal.
(8) It shall be open to the Court to impose
actual or exemplary costs upon any of the
parties under this section.
(9) An application filed under sub-section (5)
shall be disposed of by the Court as
expeditiously as possible and endeavour
shall be made to dispose of the matter
within a period of sixty days from the date
of service of notice on the opposite party.”
6. In the background of statutory provisions
and the material on record and the submissions
made by respective counsels indicates that arbitral
proceedings could not be completed within the
prescribed period of 12 months under Section 29A(1)
and within the extended period of 06 months with
consent of parties, as per Section 29A (3) due to
administrative reasons/engagements of the Learned
Arbitrator. Material on record indicates that in
addition to this, though the Reference Petition was
filed on 14.10.2018, but on account of COVID
Pandemic during the year 2020-2022 no such
proceedings were effectively convened by the learned
Arbitrator. Material on record further indicates that
the delay in completion of arbitral proceedings was
-9- 2025:HHC:2999
not attributable either to the petitioner or the
respondents herein and the parties to arbitral
proceedings cannot be made to suffer by closing the
arbitral reference resulting in depriving either of the
parties of the fruits of such reference. In these
circumstances, the arbitral proceedings, admittedly,
were not completed due to administrative and bona
fide circumstances by the Arbitrator concerned.
7. Taking into account the entirety of the
facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that the Impugned Order dated
23.05.2023 [Annexure P-1] terminating the mandate
of the Arbitrator and in closing the arbitral
proceedings deserves to be set-aside and the claim of
the petitioners for enlargement of time for concluding
the arbitral proceedings needs to be accepted for the
following reasons:-
7(i). Object of arbitral proceedings is
consensual entrustment of parties to an Arbitrator
who is bound to complete the arbitral proceedings
within a period of 12 months under Section 29A(1)
– 10 – 2025:HHC:2999
and within extendable period of 06 months under
Section 29(A)(3) of the Act. Meaning thereby that the
arbitral proceeding are to be completed by an
Arbitrator within a period of 18 months in totality.
Though, the arbitral proceedings under Section
29A(1) and Section 29A(3) are to be completed within
18 months period yet, forcing certain eventualities
leading to non-completion of arbitral proceedings
within 18 months, the law-makers being conscious
enough had prescribed a remedy under Section
29A(5) for extending the period of arbitral
proceedings, only for sufficient cause and on such
terms and conditions as may be imposed by the
Court.
Factual matrix and the material on record
in the instant case, indisputably indicate that once
the arbitral proceedings could not be completed
within 18 months by the Arbitrator concerned on
account of COVID Pandemic during the years 2020-
2022 and thereafter due to administrative reasons
which were not at all attributable to the parties
– 11 – 2025:HHC:2999
herein then, in these circumstances, the
non-completion of arbitral proceedings is borne out
from the bona fide and unintentional act of the
parties which appear to be bonafide and
unintentional. Further once the delay or non-
completion of arbitral proceedings was attributable to
the Arbitrator then, the parties herein, including the
petitioner-NHAI in the instant case have sufficient
grounds and sufficient cause for seeking extension of
time for concluding the arbitral proceedings in the
instant case and therefore, the impugned order
dated 23.05.2023 [Annexure P-1] deserves to be
set-aside by directing Learned Arbitrator to complete
the arbitral proceedings within a reasonable period.
7(ii). Once the proceedings were instituted in the
year 2018 and the proceedings continued before
Learned Arbitrator without any objection with respect
to the expiry of the time for completion of arbitral
proceedings or objection that the mandate of
Arbitrator had seized for want of completion of
proceedings but to the contrary, the parties herein
– 12 – 2025:HHC:2999
have consensually participated in arbitral proceedings
then the abrupt termination of mandate and closure of
arbitral proceedings by passing the Impugned Order
on 23.05.2023 [Annexure P-1] has certainly prejudiced
the parties to the arbitral proceedings which cannot be
permitted to operate, resulting in prejudice to the
parties herein.
7(iii). Once the statute enables the Court to
enlarge the time for completion of arbitral proceedings,
subject to its satisfaction based on sufficient cause
and such others terms and conditions as the Court
deems fit and proper then, in the instant case, since
non-completion of arbitral proceedings was based on
sufficient grounds-cause, which appear to be bona fide
and unintentional and the parties have also
participated in arbitral proceedings without any
objection then, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly
TATA Sons Ltd.) vs. Siva Industries and Holdings
Ltd. and others, reported in 2023(1) SCALE 793
such mandate is liable to be extended by the Court
– 13 – 2025:HHC:2999
under Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Act, which has
been spelt out in the following terms:-
“24 The provisions of Section 29A, as originally
introduced into the statute, mandated that
all awards shall be made within a period of
twelve months from the date on which the
arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference.
The explanation clarified when the arbitral
tribunal would be deemed to have entered
upon the reference, namely, the date on
which the arbitrator has received written
notice of the appointment. The mandatory
nature of the provisions of Section 29A(1)
and their application to all arbitrations
conducted under the Act, domestic or
international commercial, was evident from
the use of the word “shall”. In terms of
Section 29A(4), in case the arbitral
award was not rendered within the
twelve or eighteen month period as
the case may be, the mandate of the
arbitrator(s) would stand terminated,
unless on an application made by any
of the parties, the court extended time
on sufficient cause being shown.
xxxx. xxx… xxx..
26. Sub-section (3) of Section 29A empowers
parties, by consent, to extend the period
specified in sub-section (1) for making the
award by a further period not exceeding six
months. Thereafter, if the award is not
made within the period which is specified
in sub-section (1) or the extended period
specified in sub-section (3), the mandate of
the arbitrator shall terminate unless the
court has extended the period either prior
to or after the expiry of the period so
specified. In other words, the timeline of
twelve months for making the award
– 14 – 2025:HHC:2999
(in matters other than international
commercial arbitration), is qualified by
the consensual entrustment to the
parties under sub-section (3) to extend the
period by six months after which the court is
empowered in terms of sub-section (4) to
extend the period for making the award. The
submission of the second respondent is
that the provisions of sub-section (3) and
sub-section (4) must also apply to an
international commercial arbitration. This
would merit close scrutiny. The legislature
has not expressly excluded the applicability
of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 29A to
an international commercial arbitration.
But, at the same time, it must be
noticed that the rationale underlying
sub-section (3) is to ensure that despite
the stipulation of twelve months for the
making of an arbitral award in the
domestic context, parties may by
consent agree to an extension of time by
a further period of six months. Such an
extension of six months is envisaged in
the case of a domestic arbitration since
there is a mandate that the award shall
be made within a period of twelve
months. A further extension has,
however, been entrusted to the court in
terms of sub-section (4) of Section 29A.
However, insofar as an international
commercial arbitration is concerned, the
statutory regime is clear by the substantive
part of sub-section 1 of Section 29A in
terms of which the timeline of twelve
months for making an arbitral award is not
applicable to it. In an international
commercial arbitration, the legislature has
only indicated that the award should be
made as expeditiously as possible and that
an endeavour may be made to dispose of
the matter within a period of twelve months
– 15 – 2025:HHC:2999
from the completion of pleadings.”
(Underlining Ours)
7(iv). Recently, while dealing with a similar
situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.______ of 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.23320 of 2023] titled as Rohan
Builders (India) Private Limited versus Berger
Paints India Limited, has reiterated that the
mandate of Arbitrator is liable to be extended in view
of sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court in
following terms:-
“15. Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
highlights that an interpretation allowing
an extension application post the expiry
period would encourage rogue litigants and
render the timeline for making the award
inconsequential. However, it is apposite
to note that under Section 29A(5), the
power of the court to extend the time is
to be exercised only in cases where there
is sufficient cause for such extension.
Such extension is not granted
mechanically on filing of the application.
The judicial discretion of the court in terms
of the enactment acts as a deterrent
against any party abusing the process of
law or espousing a frivolous or vexatious
application. Further, the court can impose
terms and conditions while granting an
extension. Delay, even on the part of the
arbitral tribunal, is not countenanced.28
The first proviso to Section 29A(4) permits a
– 16 – 2025:HHC:2999
fee reduction of up to five percent for each
month of delay attributable to the arbitral
tribunal.
16. Lastly, Section 29A(6) does not support the
narrow interpretation of the expression
“terminate”. It states that the court – while
deciding an extension application under
Section 29A(4) – may substitute one or all
the arbitrators. Section 29A(7) states that if
a new arbitrator(s) is appointed, the
reconstituted arbitral tribunal shall be
deemed to be in continuation of the
previously appointed arbitral tribunal. This
obliterates the need to file a fresh
application under Section 11 of the A & C
Act for the appointment of an arbitrator. In
the event of substitution of arbitrator(s),
the arbitral proceedings will commence
from the stage already reached. Evidence or
material already on record is deemed to be
received by the newly constituted tribunal.
The aforesaid deeming provisions
underscore the legislative intent to
effectuate efficiency and expediency in the
arbitral process. This intent is also
demonstrated in Sections 29A(8) and
29A(9). The court in terms of Section 29A(8)
has the power to impose actual or
exemplary costs upon the parties. Lastly,
Section 29A(9) stipulates that an
application for extension under sub-section
(5) must be disposed of expeditiously, with
the endeavour of doing so within sixty days
from the date of filing.
17. As per the second proviso to Section 29A(4),
the mandate of the arbitral tribunal
continues where an application under sub-
section (5) is pending. However, an
application for extension of period of the
arbitral tribunal is to be decided by the
– 17 – 2025:HHC:2999
court in terms of sub-section (5), and
sub-sections (6) to (8) may be invoked.
The power to extend time period for
making of the award vests with the
court, and not with the arbitral tribunal.
Therefore, the arbitral tribunal may not
pronounce the award till an application
under Section 29A(5) of the A & C Act is
sub-judice before the court. In a given case,
where an award is pronounced during the
pendency of an application for extension of
period of the arbitral tribunal, the court
must still decide the application under sub-
section (5), and may even, where an award
has been pronounced, invoke, when
required and justified, sub-sections (6) to
(8), or the first and third proviso to Section
29A(4) of the A & C Act.
18. While interpreting a statute, we must strive
to give meaningful life to an enactment or
rule and avoid cadaveric consequences that
result in unworkable or impracticable
scenarios. An interpretation which
produces an unreasonable result is not to
be imputed to a statute if there is some
other equally possible construction which
is acceptable, practical and pragmatic.”
8. Based on the facts of the instant case,
once the administrative reasons including the
Pandemic had resulted non-completion of the arbitral
proceedings within the maximum period of 18
months then, the parties to arbitral proceedings
cannot be made to suffer for the fault or inaction in
– 18 – 2025:HHC:2999
not completing the arbitral proceedings by the
Arbitrator. In this backdrop, once the administrative
reasons and COVID Pandemic and other bona fide
circumstances has resulted in terminating the
mandate of arbitral and closing the arbitral
proceedings then, the parties to arbitral proceedings
cannot be prejudiced without any fault attributable
to them. Moreover, the act of a Court cannot
prejudice a man and therefore, the termination of
mandate of Arbitrator and closure of proceedings of
Arbitrator, certainly amounts to prejudicing the
petitioner by the act of an Arbitrator which is
unsustainable in view of the principle of “Actus
Curiae Neminem Gravabit”.
9. Even a perusal of the Impugned Orders
dated 23.05.2023 [Annexure P-1] reveals that the
Arbitrator has directed the parties to seek extension or
continuance of arbitral proceedings by intervention of
the Court. This Impugned Order also supports the case
of the parties herein for extension by invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court. This admitted position, in
– 19 – 2025:HHC:2999
itself is a sufficient cause, so as to direct the
Arbitrator to complete the arbitral proceedings within a
reasonable time as mandated by this Order, so as to
give meaningful life to the enactment in Section
29A(1)(3)(4) & (5) of the statute and to make the
statute workable and practicable in view of the
peculiar facts in the instant case. Moreover, denial of
extension, in facts of this case, shall lead to adversarial
consequences to the parties herein and by prejudicing
the rights of parties, without any fault attributable to
them but due to the bona fide or inadvertent omission
and inactions of the arbitrator concerned. In these
circumstances, the prayer for extension by way of
instant application has merit and the same is granted.
10. Similar issue came up for discussion and
the Co-ordinate Bench(es) of this Court, have granted
extension with directions to conclude the arbitral
proceedings, within a specified time-line, in the
following identical cases:
(i) Arb. Case No.2 of 2023, titled as
Prakash Chand Versus LAC & Others,
decided on 13.01.2023.
– 20 – 2025:HHC:2999
(ii) Arb. Case No.44 of 2023, titled as Nand
Lal alias Nand Lal Vardhan Verus Land
Acquisition Collector and others, decided
on 18.04.2023.
(iii) Arb. Case No.122 of 2022, titled as
Dinesh Kumar Versus Land Acquisition
Officer and another, decided on
07.07.2023.
(iv) Arb. Case No.43 of 2019, titled as Devki
Nand Thakur Versus State of H.P.
through Secretary (PW), decided on
12.07.2019.
(v) Arb. Case No.491 of 2023, titled as Rup
Lal Verma versus The Land Acquisition
Officer-cum-Competent Authority & anr.
a/w connected matter, decided on
19.08.2023.
11. Recently, the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court has granted extension of time to complete the
arbitral proceedings by 06 months in Arbitration
Case No.1012 of 2023, titled as NHAI versus
Competent Authority of Land Acquisition-cum-
SDO Nalagarh & Ors., decided on 09.01.2024.
“3. The arbitral dispute has arisen out of the
land acquisition in District Solan, H.P. for
the purpose of construction of the National
Highway, land for which has been acquired
under the provisions of National Highways
Act, 1956. The lands of the claimants have
been acquired by the petitioner in the
present case in District Solan. On
22.03.2017, the respondent No.1 i.e.
– 21 – 2025:HHC:2999
competent authority passed an Award No.3
qua village Dadi Bhola, Hadbast No.146,
District Solan, HP.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, the
petitioner has preferred the Reference
Petition No.423/2018, before the learned
Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner,
Shimla Camp at Solan, District Solan, and
non-adjudication of the arbitral proceedings
within the statutory period has resulted in
filing of the instant petition.
5. The Reference Petition against the Award
was filed by the petitioner long back.
According to the petitioner, the matter
alongwith other cases was posted on various
dates and on most of the dates, the
proceedings could not be taken further due
to administrative reasons/engagements. It
has further been submitted that the petition
was filed on 14.10.2018 and due to Covid-19
pandemic during 2020-22, no effective
hearing could take place. Ultimately the case
was ordered to be listed on 23.05.2023,
when learned Arbitrator has ordered the
proceedings to be closed, on account of the
fact that proceedings could not be completed
within period prescribed under Arbitration
Act.
7. However, at this stage, the Court is
restraining from making any further
observation in the case save and except that
henceforth, if the Court finds the
Arbitrator derelicting his duties, then it
shall not hesitate to invoke its powers as
enshrined in Section 29 (A) (6) of the 1996
Act, to terminate the mandate of the
Arbitrator, dehors the fact that the Arbitrator
happens to be appointed in terms of the
notification issued by the Central
– 22 – 2025:HHC:2999
Government under Section 3G (a) of the
National Highways Act, 1956.
8. In view of the above discussion, the instant
petition is allowed and the Arbitrator-cum-
Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Camp at
Solan, District Solan, H.P., exercising the
powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the
National Highways Act, 1956 is directed to
conclude the arbitral proceedings and to
pass the arbitral award in Arbitration Case
No.423/2018, on or before 8th July, 2024.
Petition stands disposed of, so also the
pending miscellaneous applications, if any.”
12. Recently, another Co-ordinate Bench in
Arbitration Case No.878 of 2024, titled as Deepak
Kumar versus UOI & Ors. decided on 10.12.2024, has
enlarged the time for completion of arbitral
proceedings by 06 months in the following terms:-
“3. I have heard learned counsel on both sides
and considered the case file. It has been
informed that in similar matters, taking
recourse to Section 29A(4) of the Act, the
Courts have extended the period for passing
the award by six months.
4. The petitioner has made out a case for
extending the period for deciding the
arbitration proceedings by six months.
Ordered accordingly. The mandate of
learned Arbitrator in deciding the petition
under reference is extended by six months
from today. The parties, through their
learned counsel, are directed to appear
before the learned Arbitrator on 27.12.2024.
All rights and contentions of the parties are
– 23 – 2025:HHC:2999
left open to be adjudicated by the learned
Arbitrator.
The petition stands disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any.”
CONCLUSION & DIRECTIONS:
13. In view of the above discussion and for the
reasons recorded here-in-above, the instant petition is
allowed in the following terms:-
(i). The Impugned Order dated 23.05.2023
[Annexure P-1] passed by Learned Arbitrator-
cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, in
Arbitration Reference Petition No.421 of 2018
is quashed and set-aside.
(ii). Arbitration Reference Petition No.421 of
2018, shall stand restored.
(iii). Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional
Commissioner, Shimla [Camp at Solan, under
Section 3G of the National Highways Act], is
mandated to complete the arbitral
proceedings and to pass the Award in
accordance with law on or before 31st
August, 2025.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ranjan Sharma)
January 09, 2025 Judge
(Shivender)
[ad_1]
Source link