IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CARBC No.15 of 2026 Date of Decision: 08.04.2026 __________________________________________________________ M/s Garg Sons Estate Promoters Pvt. Ltd. …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, a prayer has been made to extend the time for completion of arbitration proceedings pending before learned Arbitrator. 2. It is submitted in the petition that though the proceedings were started by learned Arbitrator in the year 2022 and statement of claims was amended on 22.07.2024 and thereafter, on 17.09.2024, time was granted to the respondent to file reply to the amended statement of claims, but till date, reply of the amended statement of claims is awaited. On 04.02.2025, learned Arbitrator observed that more than two years and two months have passed, but the proceedings have not been completed and as such, directed the parties to seek extension of time. 3. The respondents, though, have not filed any reply, but has placed on record communication dated 11.12.2025, perusal whereof reveals that the respondents have no objection in case the time as 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 prayed for is extended for completion of arbitral proceedings. From perusal of the reasons stated in the petition as also the record of the learned Arbitrator, I am satisfied that the delay in completion of proceedings is neither intentional nor willful, but is on account of reasons which were beyond the control of the learned Arbitrator. 4. Otherwise, parties are ad-idem that the issue at hand have been adjudicated by this Court in Arb. Case No. 44 of 2023, titled Nand Lal alias Nand Lal Vardhan Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others, wherein provisions of S.29A of the Act have been discussed in detail. 5. In view of this, the petition is allowed. The time for completion of arbitration proceedings by learned Arbitrator is extended by three months to be reckoned from the date parties appear before learned Arbitrator. Parties are directed to appear before learned Arbitrator on 28.04.2026. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 6. Needless to say, parties to the lis would complete pleadings before the learned Arbitrator on or before the date fixed by this Court, so that needful is done by the Arbitrator well within stipulated time. A downloaded copy of this order shall suffice for the learned Arbitrator to do the needful in terms thereof. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 08, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)