Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jaswant Kaur vs Collector Land Acquisition on 7 March, 2025
2025:HHC:5124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
Arbitration Case No:457 of 2024
a/w Arbitration Case Nos.456, 458
& 459 of 2024
Reserved On : 28.02.2025
Announced on: 07.03.2025
__________________________________________________________
1. Arbitration Case No.457 of 2024
Jaswant Kaur …Petitioner
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition …Respondents
National Highway Authority of
India & Others.
__________________________________________________________
2. Arbitration Case No.456 of 2024
Roop Lal …Petitioner
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition …Respondents
National Highway Authority of
India & Others.
__________________________________________________________
3. Arbitration Case No.458 of 2024
Jaswant Kaur …Petitioner
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition …Respondents
National Highway Authority of
India & Others.
__________________________________________________________
-2- 2025:HHC:5124
4. Arbitration Case No.459 of 2024
Roop Lal …Petitioner
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition …Respondents
National Highway Authority of
India & Others.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioners : Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi
& Ms. Bhavinta Kumari,
Advocates, in all the
petitions.
For the respondents : Ms. Shreya Chauhan,
Advocate, for respondents
No.1 & 2-NHAI, in all the
petitions.
Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional
Advocate General, for
respondent No.3-State, in
all the petitions.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Since common question of facts and law are
involved, therefore, with the consent of parties, all
these cases, are taken up for adjudication together at
this stage, in the interests of justice.
2. Learned Counsel for petitioners states that
Arbitration Case No.457 of 2024, titled as Jaswant
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
-3- 2025:HHC:5124
Kaur versus Collector Land Acquisition, National
Highway Authority of India & Others, may be
treated as ‘Lead Case’ for adjudication of all the
connected petitions. Prayer not opposed by Learned
Counsel for contesting respondents No.1 & 2-NHAI.
The prayer is allowed and accordingly, this Court
proceeds in the above matters.
3. Petitioner [Jaswant Kaur] in Lead Case
i.e. Arbitration Case No.457 of 2024, has come up,
before this Court, seeking the following relief(s):-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that
this application/petition may very kindly
be allowed and the impugned order
dated 08.02.2023 passed in Case No.9/19
alongwith other connected matter may kindly
be set aside/quashed and the time period
in this case may kindly be extended and the
Ld. Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner,
Mandi Division Mandi may kindly be directed
to decide the case No.9/19 in a time bound
manner and justice be done.”
FACTUAL MATRIX IN LEAD CASE-
ARBITRATION CASE NO.457 OF 2024,
4. Case of petitioner [Jaswant Kaur] in
Arbitration Case No.457 of 2024, as set-up
by Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, Learned Counsel is
that pursuant to Notification under Section 3(A) of the
National Highways Act, 1956, the Central Government
-4- 2025:HHC:5124
published a Notification to acquire the stretch of land
Nerchowk to Manali, National Highway No.21 for
building, widening, maintenance, management and
operation of said Highway in State of Himachal
Pradesh. Consequently, the land belonging to
petitioner at Village Trambali, Tehsil & District Kullu
[HP] was acquired by CALA i.e. Competent
Authority/Land Acquisition in terms of an Award
No.104/1, dated 31.05.2017.
4(i). Feeling aggrieved against the Award dated
31.05.2017, passed by Competent Authority for
Land Acquisition, the petitioner filed a reference
petition before Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional
Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi, which was
registered as Reference Petition No.9/19, whereby,
Learned Arbitrator continued the arbitral proceedings,
but on 08.02.2023 [Annexure P-1, Colly], 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 arbitral
proceedings could not be completed within the time
-5- 2025:HHC:5124
schedule as per Section 29A(1) and Section 29A(3) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
4(ii). Consequent upon the passing of the
Impugned Order on 08.02.2023 [Annexure P-1, Colly]
terminating the mandate of Arbitrator and in keeping
the arbitral proceedings in abeyance till extension was
sought from a competent Court, therefore, in these
circumstances, since the petitioner was left without
any remedy coupled with the fact that the delay
in completion of arbitral proceedings was not
attributable to the petitioner; and delay in completion
of arbitral proceedings was entirely due to
administrative reasons, for which, the parties should
not be made to suffer, coupled with the fact that
termination of mandate of Arbitrator will cause
prejudice to the parties therefore, in these
circumstances, it was prayed that the time for
completion of arbitral proceedings may be enlarged
with directions to Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional
Commissioner concerned to conclude the proceedings.
5. Despite nine opportunities, since
-6- 2025:HHC:5124
24.04.2024, the contesting respondents 1 & 2-NHAI
have chosen not to file any reply in instant
proceedings.
5(i). Upon listing of this case today on
28.02.2025 and in response to a query by this Court,
Learned Counsel(s) for parties, jointly represented
that in similar matters, relating to Nerchowk-Manali,
Section of NH-21, this Court had enlarged time for
conclusion of arbitral proceedings with direction(s) to
Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner,
Mandi [HP] to complete the arbitral proceedings within
a reasonable time.
6. Heard Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi,
Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Shreya
Chauhan, Learned Counsel for contesting respondents
No.1 & 2 as well as Mr. Gobind Korla, Learned
Additional Advocate General for respondent No.3 and
have gone through the material on record.
STATUTORY PROVISION:
7. In order to appreciate the claim of the
parties herein, it is necessary to have a recap of
-7- 2025:HHC:5124
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
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
-8- 2025:HHC:5124
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
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.”
-9- 2025:HHC:5124
UNDISPUTED FACTS:
8. Undisputed facts are that though the
arbitral proceedings could not be completed within
maximum period of 18 months [under Section 29A(1)
& (3) by the Arbitrator due to COVID Pandemic for
almost two years from March 2020 till February
2022; coupled with the fact that the Arbitrator was
the Divisional Commissioner who had to look after
other administrative work and related exigencies; and
the fact that delay in non-completion of arbitral
proceedings was attributable to respondents-NHAI,
who did not file the reply despite opportunities; and
delay in timely completion of the proceedings was not
attributable to petitioner who participated in arbitral
proceedings then, the petitioner cannot be made to
suffer prejudice by abrupt closure of arbitral
proceedings which have resulted in depriving the
petitioners of the fruits of such reference. Above
facts, reveal that arbitral proceedings could not be
primarily completed due to administrative and bona
– 10 – 2025:HHC:5124
fide reasons which were beyond the control of
Arbitrator concerned and these circumstances
indicate sufficient cause for restoration of Reference
Proceedings, which were closed/kept in abeyance by
concerned Arbitrator in the instant case.
ANALYSIS:
9. Taking into account the entirety of the
facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that the Impugned Order dated
08.02.2023 [Annexure P-1, Colly] terminating
the mandate of Arbitrator and in keeping the
arbitral proceedings in abeyance deserves to be
set-aside; and the claim of petitioner for enlargement
of time for concluding the arbitral proceedings
needs to be accepted, for the following reasons:-
9(i). Object of the 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)
and within extendable period of 06 months under
Section 29(A)(3) of the Act. Meaning thereby that
– 11 – 2025:HHC:5124
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 in case due to unforeseen
eventualities the arbitral proceedings are not
completed within 18 months, then the law-makers
were conscious enough by prescribing 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.
SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR EXTENSION:
9(ii). Factual matrix and material on record
in instant case, indisputably indicate that the
arbitral proceedings could not be completed within
the maximum stipulated period of 18 months by the
Arbitrator concerned on account of COVID Pandemic
during the years 2020-2022 and thereafter due to
administrative reasons as the arbitrator happened
to be Divisional Commissioner of concerned Division
– 12 – 2025:HHC:5124
and also due to non filing of reply by
respondent-NHAI despite several opportunities; and
the fact that parties to arbitral proceedings could not
be made to suffer due to reasons not attributable to
petitioner; and when, the petitioner and respondent-
NHAI have participated in arbitral proceedings
without any objection beyond 18 months therefore, in
order to prevent any prejudice to petitioner who had
been litigating since the passing of Award in 2017
and even in Reference Proceedings before the
arbitrator since 2019 till the passing of Impugned
Order on 08.02.2023, then, the circumstances
detailed herein indicate sufficient cause, which
appears to be bona fide and therefore, the Impugned
Order deserves to be set aside by directing Learned
Arbitrator to complete the arbitral proceedings
within a reasonable period.
PETITIONER CANNOT BE MADE TO SUFFER
DUE TO ABRUPT TERMINATION OF MANDATE:
9(iii). Once the parties to arbitral proceedings
have consensually participated in arbitral proceedings
– 13 – 2025:HHC:5124
since 2019 till February, 2023 then, the Impugned
Order terminating the mandate of Arbitrator and
keeping the arbitral proceedings in abeyance by
passing the Impugned Order on 08.02.2023
[Annexure P-1, Colly], has certainly prejudiced the
parties to the arbitral proceedings which cannot be
permitted to operate, resulting in prejudice to the
parties herein.
9(iv). Once the statute enables the Court to
enlarge 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. In the instant case, since
non-completion of arbitral proceedings were on
account of COVID Pandemic w.e.f. March 2020 [due to
Lockdown] till February 2022 and thereafter due
to non-filing of reply by NHAI and also due to other
administrative reasons being Divisional Commissioner
also, then, once the above reasons spelt out sufficient
cause, which is bonafide based on sufficient cause and
as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
– 14 – 2025:HHC:5124
TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly TATA Sons Ltd.)
vs. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. and others,
reported in 2023(1) SCALE 793 mandate of Arbitrator
is liable to be extended by the Court under Section
29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Act, 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
– 15 – 2025:HHC:5124
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
(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
– 16 – 2025:HHC:5124
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
from the completion of pleadings.”
(Underlining Ours)
9(v). 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, decided on 12.09.2024, has
reiterated that the mandate of an Arbitrator is liable
to be extended, in view of sufficient cause, to the
satisfaction of the Court, in the 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
– 17 – 2025:HHC:5124
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
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.
– 18 – 2025:HHC:5124
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
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.”
PETITIONER CANNOT SUFFER DUE TO
PENDENCY OF PROCEEDINGS:
10. In instant case, the arbitral proceedings
continued since 2019 till February 2023, in which
– 19 – 2025:HHC:5124
the petitioner and respondents participated without
any objection. These proceedings stretched over for
almost four years. Once the Learned Arbitrator
permitted the parties to participate in arbitral
proceedings beyond the permissible period of 18
months then, the Impugned Order passed by
Arbitrator on 08.02.2023 [Annexure P-1], that he
cannot proceed because his mandate stood
terminated and the arbitral proceedings were kept in
abeyance, certainly amounts to prejudicing the
petitioner due to an act Arbitrator herein which
defeats the principle of “Actus Curiae Neminem
Gravabit”.
EXTENSION GIVEN IN OTHER CASES BY
CO-ORDINATE BENCH AND THIS COURT IN
SIMILAR FACT-SITUATION:
11. Similar issue came up for discussion and
Co-ordinate Bench(es) of this Court, granted
enlargement-extension of time to Learned Arbitrator
to conclude the arbitral proceedings, in the following
cases:
(i) Arb. Case No.2 of 2023, titled as
Prakash Chand Versus LAC & Others,
– 20 – 2025:HHC:5124
decided on 13.01.2023.
(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.
11(i). Recently, the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court granted extension of time to complete the
arbitral proceedings within six months, in
Arbitration Case No.1012 of 2023, titled as
NHAI versus Competent Authority of Land
Acquisition-cum-SDO Nalagarh & Ors., decided on
09.01.2025.
“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.
competent authority passed an Award No.3
qua village Dadi Bhola, Hadbast No.146,
– 21 – 2025:HHC:5124
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:5124
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.”
11(ii). 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 time for completion of arbitral
proceedings by six 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.
– 23 – 2025:HHC:5124
All rights and contentions of the parties are
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:
12. In view of the above discussion and for
the reasons recorded, here-in-above, all the above
petitions are allowed, in the following terms:-
(i). Impugned Orders dated 08.02.2023
[Annexure P-1, Colly] passed in
Arbitration Cases No.457 & 458 of
2024, passed by Learned Arbitrator-
cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi,
in Arbitration Reference Petition Nos.
9/19, & 11/19, are quashed and set-
aside.
(ii). Impugned Orders dated 07.02.2023
[Annexure P-1, Colly] passed in
Arbitration Cases No.456 & 459 of
2024, passed by Learned Arbitrator-
cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi,
in Arbitration Reference Petition Nos.
9/19, & 10/19, are quashed and set-
aside.
(iii). All the Arbitration Reference
Petition(s) as in (i) & (ii) supra, shall
stand restored to their original
– 24 – 2025:HHC:5124
position;
(iv). Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional
Commissioner, Mandi, is mandated to
complete the arbitral proceedings and
to pass the Award in accordance with
law within six months from date of
receipt of copy of this judgment.
(v). Costs made easy for respective
parties.
In aforesaid terms, the instant petitions and
all pending application(s) if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(Ranjan Sharma)
March 07, 2025 Judge
(Shivender)