Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14290 (HP)

TEK CHAND v. STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

ARB.C/150/2025 · 2025-06-25

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Case No.150 of 2025 Date of decision: 25.06.2025 Tek Chand. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The petitioner has moved this petition under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extending the time to complete the arbitral proceedings. 2. Despite notice and directions to the respondents to file reply under order dated 28.05.2025, the respondents have not filed reply to the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to an order passed under Section 11(6) of the Act on 27.04.2022 in Arbitration Case No.8 of 2022, the Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Learned Arbitrator accordingly entered upon the reference. The matter reached the stage of arguments and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes was fixed for 11.04.2025, when an application was moved for the claimant (present petitioner) for placing on record certain documents. By that stage, it was noticed that the mandate of the learned Arbitrator had lapsed due to the statutory time period provided under Section 29A(1) of the Act. Hence, this application has been necessitated for extending the mandate of the learned Tribunal. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on considering the pleadings, case is made out for extending the mandate of the Tribunal. The proceedings before him are stated to be at the stage of arguments though an application for placing on record document has been filed. As observed earlier, the respondents have not filed any reply to this case. 5. In view of above, this arbitration case is allowed by extending the mandate of the learned Arbitrator by six months from today. 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. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 25th June, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)