2026:HHC:29380 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 133 of 2026 Date of decision: 17.07.2026. Pratap Singh ...Petitioner. Versus Bhagwan Singh ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vishwas Kaushal vice Mr. Vivek Singh Negi, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking extension of time to the Tribunal for passing the award. 2. As per averments as made in the petition, the parties to the partnership deed had agreed to conduct the business to run a stone crusher in the name and style of Pratap Stone Crusher at Village Chatru, P.O. Koksar, Tehsil Keylong, District Lahaul & Spiti. For the said purpose, a mining lease was granted in favour of the petitioner. Though, the petitioner had obtained all the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- necessary permissions which were required for the establishment of the stone crusher at the site, but respondent did not permit the petitioner to establish the stone crusher for one reason or the other. Further, it has been contended that the respondent was handling all the business as well as the accounts of the partnership but had not rendered any accounts to the petitioner. The partnership deed contains an arbitration clause No. 23 of the Partnership Deed. 3. It has been averred in the petition that the respondent filed a suit before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu, wherein the petitioner vide order dated 19.07.2023 had been restrained from violating the terms of the partnership deed inter-se the parties. The said order was assailed before the learned District Judge, Kullu, who also affirmed the same. Thereafter, the order was assailed before this Court in CMPMO No. 322 of 2024, which came to be allowed on 01.04.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked arbitration clause vide notice dated 11.09.2024 and Mr. J.S. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate was appointed as Sole Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator -3- had entered upon reference on 14.11.2024 and thereafter, the proceedings are going on. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent did not appear before the learned Arbitrator despite several notices, even though the statement of claims stands filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to order dated 25.06.2026, passed by the learned Arbitrator, which reads as follows:- “Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. Notice of today’s hearing was sent to the respondent by speed post on 05.06.2026 and the tracking of the same shows that the same was delivered on 08.06.2026. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the respondent may be proceeded against ex-parte. However, taking into consideration the fact that the statutory time for making the award has elapsed, this Tribunal may not have any mandate to proceed further. Faced with this, learned counsel seeks time to move an appropriate application before the Hon’ble Court for extension of mandate of this Tribunal. Let this be done by the claimant within two weeks and the matter shall now be taken up on 13.07.2026 at 2.30 PM in my chamber”. 5. In view of the averments as made in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit and in view of the -4- submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is allowed and time is extended for completing the arbitral proceedings for passing the award by the learned Arbitrator within a period of six months from today. 6. The petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge 17th July, 2026. (kck)