2025:HHC:34732 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.345 of 2023 Decided on: 14.10.2025 Divisional Manager, H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Sh. Bhuteshwar Dutt … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 16.06.21022 (Annexure P-3), in terms whereof, the execution petition of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the Award, execution of which was being sought, was nullity in the eyes of law in light of the provisions of Section 12 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as amended in the year 2015. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the order under challenge. 3. A perusal of the order demonstrates the Managing Director of Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation himself was the Arbitrator in the matter, who delegated the power to Director, South 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:34732 Zone, to decide the case. Later on, the Managing Director transferred the matter to Arbitrator-cum-Director, North, who ultimately passed the Award. This demonstrates that the Award was passed by an Officer of the Decree Holder-Corporation itself, which renders the Award void ab initio in light of the provisions of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, relevant judgments on which issue already stand quoted in the order under challenge. 4. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the Forest Corporation was bonafidely pursuing the matter in the mode and manner in which it was, it be observed that setting aside of the Award shall not come in the way of the Forest Corporation in going in for fresh arbitration and the issue of delays and latches/limitation shall be construed in light of the factual developments which have taken place in the matter. 5. In light of the prayer so made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, though this petition is dismissed as this Court does not finds any infirmity in the impugned order, however, liberty, as prayed for, is granted to the petitioner-Corporation to go for fresh arbitration or for any other mode of adjudication of its grievance as it may be advised. It goes without saying that as the petitioner was bonafidely 3 2025:HHC:34732 pursuing its remedies, the time that has been spent therein in the decision of this case shall be taken into consideration while deciding the issue of limitation or delays and latches. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 14, 2025 (Rishi)