2025:HHC:43987 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 285 of 2025 Date of decision: 17.12.2025. Krishan Pal ...Petitioner. Versus The Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Baldev Negi, Addl.A.G., for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, CGC, for respondent No.2. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Heard. 2. This petition has been filed under Section 29 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of time to conclude the arbitration proceedings. 3. The parties were contesting the claim of each other in arbitration proceedings under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act being Reference Petition No. NH-70(38/23) before the Arbitrator i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 4. On 16.01.2025, the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi had recorded the following order:- “Today this case was fixed for arguments but from the perusal of the case file, it transpired that mandate to decide this case has already expired on 03.01.2025. Parties are at liberty to apply to the competent Court of law for extension of time if permissible under the law. The case file be consigned to the GRR after due completion. 5. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has been diligently participating in the arbitration proceedings and the same could not be completed for various other reasons in which the petitioner was not involved. In this manner, the plea raised by the petitioner is that the delay in completion of arbitral proceedings cannot be attributed to him. 6. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has filed the reply and has tried to put the blame on the petitioner in getting the proceedings delayed. 7. Noticeably, none of the parties have placed on record any material to suggest the reason for delay in completion of arbitral proceedings. Since the petitioner has approached the Arbitrator for enhanced awarded amount, inferably, it will not be in his interest to delay the proceedings. -3- In any case, the record reveals that the arbitration proceedings had reached the final stage and the case was listed for arguments before the Arbitrator. In this view of the matter, I find it to be a fit case for grant of indulgence to avoid the injustice to the parties. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The time for completion of arbitration proceedings is extended by three months, keeping in view the fact that the proceedings are at final stage and after hearing of arguments, the Arbitrator has to pronounce the award only. 9. The parties are directed to remain present before the Arbitrator on 5.01.2025. 10. The petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 17th December, 2025 Judge (kck)