IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 42 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.10.2025. Mohan Sharma ...Petitioner. Versus NHAI ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate vice Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, submits that he does not want to file the rejoinder. 2. Heard. 3. This application has been filed under Section 29-A (4) & (5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with a prayer for extension of time to complete the arbitration proceedings. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 4. It is averred that the Arbitrator had closed the proceedings on 2.8.2023, as his mandate had come to an end by efflux of time. The applicant who is stated to be residing abroad could not take immediate steps for extension of time and hence the filing of instant application got delayed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of order dated 21.9.2023, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Arbitration Case No. 684 of 2023, titled as, Puran Singh vs. Land Acquisition Officer & another along with other connected matters to urge that in all other similar matters, wherein the proceedings were closed on the same date i.e. 2.8.2023 by the Arbitrator, on applications of similarly situated persons, the time has been extended. 6. Respondent NHAI has filed the reply and has raised an objection that the application has been filed belatedly and hence cannot be allowed. 7. Having considered the averments made in the application to which, there is no rebuttal, I am of the considered view that the application needs to be allowed keeping in view the interest of justice more particularly when in similarly situated cases, the time has already been extended in terms of order dated 21.9.2023, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Arbitration Case No. 684 of 2023, titled as, -3- Puran Singh vs. Land Acquisition Officer & another along with other connected matters. 8. Another fact that cannot be lost site is that the arbitration proceedings had commenced in the year 2017 and thereafter, considerable period of time was lost due to Covid-19 Pandemic. 9. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the mandate of learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceedings in Arbitration Case No. 113 of 2017 is extended by six months from the date of passing of this order. Since the proceedings in the arbitration have been delayed considerably, it will be open to the NHAI to agitate its right in respect of payment of interest during the proceedings of arbitration. 10. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 7th October, 2025 Judge (kck)