2026:HHC:801 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Arbitration Case No.367 of 2025 Decided on: 02.01.2026 __________________________________________________________ Rajeev Kumar Verma .....Petitioner Versus Secretary National High Authority and another ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate vice Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for Respondent No.1-NHAI Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for Respondent No.2- State. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner-Rajeev Kumar Verma, has come up before this Court in instant petition filed under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking following relief:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this application/petition may very kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 05.04.2023 passed in Case No.39/19 alongwith other connected matter may kindly be set aside/quashed and the time period in this case may kindly be extended and the Ld. Arbitrator- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:801 cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla may kindly be directed to decide the Case No.39/2019 in a time bound manner and justice be done.” 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to passing of the Award by CALA concerned, the parties offered themselves for arbitral proceedings, before Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, who commenced the arbitral proceedings vide Case No.39/2019. It is averred that though arbitral proceedings continued since 2019 but Learned Arbitrator passed an order on 05.04.2023 [Annexure P-1], for keeping the arbitral proceedings in abeyance. It is in this background, the present petition has been filed, with the prayer to direct Learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitral proceedings within a stipulated period by extending the time for concluding the arbitral proceedings under Section 29 A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, by quashing the order dated 05.04.2023 [Annexure P-1]. 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 19.11.2025, Respondents were directed to file Reply and the matter was directed to be listed on 3 2026:HHC:801 16.12.2025, when, Respondents sought more time to file Reply and accordingly the matter was posted for today [02.01.2026]. However, upon listing of the case today, Learned Counsel for both the Respondents state that no reply is intended to be filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. On query by this Court, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that identical matters have been allowed by granting extension to Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh for concluding the arbitral proceedings. 5. Heard, Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Learned Vice Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 for Respondent No.1- National Highway Authority of India and Ms. Ayushi Negi, Learned Deputy Advocate General for Respondent No.2-State. 6. Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Learned Vice Counsel for Respondent No.1-NHAI does not dispute the factual matrix that the arbitral proceedings commenced in the year 2019 and since then, the parties have 4 2026:HHC:801 participated in these proceedings. It is not in dispute that in other identical cases relating to the same subject-land though the arbitral proceedings were kept in abeyance and the mandate of the Arbitrator was terminated but consequent upon the intervention of this Court, the time was enlarged/extended for concluding the arbitral proceedings. Pursuant to the orders passed in similar cases arbitral process are underway and/or in some case the same have been concluded. 7. While dealing with a similar fact-situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly TATA Sons Ltd.) vs. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. and others, reported in 2023 (1) SCALE 793, held that the mandate of an Arbitrator is liable to be extended by the Court, under Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Act, in the following terms:- “24 The provisions of Section 29A, as originally introduced into the statute, mandated that all awards shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date on which the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference. The explanation clarified when the arbitral tribunal would be deemed to have entered upon the reference, namely, the date on which the arbitrator has received written notice of the appointment. The mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 29A(1) and 5 2026:HHC:801 their application to all arbitrations conducted under the Act, domestic or international commercial, was evident from the use of the word “shall”. In terms of Section 29A(4), in case the arbitral award was not rendered within the twelve or eighteen month period as the case may be, the mandate of the arbitrator(s) would stand terminated, unless on an application made by any of the parties, the court extended time on sufficient cause being shown. xxxx. xxx… xxx.. 26. Sub-section (3) of Section 29A empowers parties, by consent, to extend the period specified in sub-section (1) for making the award by a further period not exceeding six months. Thereafter, if the award is not made within the period which is specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified in sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator shall terminate unless the court has extended the period either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified. In other words, the timeline of twelve months for making the award (in matters other than international commercial arbitration), is qualified by the consensual entrustment to the parties under sub-section (3) to extend the period by six months after which the court is empowered in terms of sub-section (4) to extend the period for making the award. The submission of the second respondent is that the provisions of sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) must also apply to an international commercial arbitration. This would merit close scrutiny. The legislature has not expressly excluded the applicability of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 29A to an international commercial arbitration. But, at the same time, it must be noticed that the rationale underlying sub-section (3) is to ensure that despite the stipulation 6 2026:HHC:801 of twelve months for the making of an arbitral award in the domestic context, parties may by consent agree to an extension of time by a further period of six months. Such an extension of six months is envisaged in the case of a domestic arbitration since there is a mandate that the award shall be made within a period of twelve months. A further extension has, however, been entrusted to the court in terms of sub- section (4) of Section29A. However, insofar as an international commercial arbitration is concerned, the statutory regime is clear by the substantive part of sub-section 1 of Section 29A in terms of which the timeline of twelve months for making an arbitral award is not applicable to it. In an international commercial arbitration, the legislature has only indicated that the award should be made as expeditiously as possible and that an endeavour may be made to dispose of the matter within a period of twelve months from the completion of pleadings.” (emphasis supplied) 8. While dealing with a similar situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.10620 of 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23320 of 2023] titled as Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited versus Berger Paints India Limited, decided on 12.09.2024, has reiterated that mandate of an Arbitrator is liable to be extended in view of sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court, in the following terms:- “15. Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) 7 2026:HHC:801 highlights that an interpretation allowing an extension application post the expiry period would encourage rogue litigants and render the timeline for making the award inconsequential. However, it is apposite to note that under Section 29A(5), the power of the court to extend the time is to be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient cause for such extension. Such extension is not granted mechanically on filing of the application. The judicial discretion of the court in terms of the enactment acts as a deterrent against any party abusing the process of law or espousing a frivolous or vexatious application. Further, the court can impose terms and conditions while granting an extension. Delay, even on the part of the arbitral tribunal, is not countenanced.28 The first proviso to Section 29A(4) permits a fee reduction of up to five percent for each month of delay attributable to the arbitral tribunal. 16. Lastly, Section 29A(6) does not support the narrow interpretation of the expression “terminate”. It states that the court – while deciding an extension application under Section 29A(4) – may substitute one or all the arbitrators. Section 29A(7) states that if a new arbitrator(s) is appointed, the reconstituted arbitral tribunal shall be deemed to be in continuation of the previously appointed arbitral tribunal. This obliterates the need to file a fresh application under Section 11 of the A & C Act for the appointment of an arbitrator. In the event of substitution of arbitrator(s), the arbitral proceedings will commence from the stage already reached. Evidence or material already on record is deemed to be received by the newly constituted tribunal. The aforesaid deeming provisions underscore the legislative intent to effectuate efficiency and expediency in the arbitral process. 8 2026:HHC:801 This intent is also demonstrated in Sections 29A(8) and 29A(9). The court in terms of Section 29A(8) has the power to impose actual or exemplary costs upon the parties. Lastly, Section 29A(9) stipulates that an application for extension under sub-section (5) must be disposed of expeditiously, with the endeavour of doing so within sixty days from the date of filing. 17. As per the second proviso to Section 29A(4), the mandate of the arbitral tribunal continues where an application under sub-section (5) is pending. However, an application for extension of period of the arbitral tribunal is to be decided by the court in terms of sub- section (5), and sub-sections (6) to (8) may be invoked. The power to extend time period for making of the award vests with the court, and not with the arbitral tribunal. Therefore, the arbitral tribunal may not pronounce the award till an application under Section 29A(5) of the A & C Act is sub-judice before the court. In a given case, where an award is pronounced during the pendency of an application for extension of period of the arbitral tribunal, the court must still decide the application under sub-section (5), and may even, where an award has been pronounced, invoke, when required and justified, sub-sections (6) to (8), or the first and third proviso to Section 29A(4) of the A & C Act. 18. While interpreting a statute, we must strive to give meaningful life to an enactment or rule and avoid cadaveric consequences that result in unworkable or impracticable scenarios. An interpretation which produces an unreasonable result is not to be imputed to a statute if there is some other equally possible construction which is acceptable, practical and pragmatic.” 9 2026:HHC:801 9. Even a perusal of the Statute prescribes that arbitral proceedings are to be completed within 12 months and same were extendable by 6 months with consent of parties. Though, the arbitral proceedings were to be completed within 18 months but they continued from 2019 till the passing impugned order on 05.04.2023 [Annexure P-1] when, the mandate of Learned Arbitrator stood terminated and arbitral proceedings were kept in abeyance. Material on record suggests that even after expiry of 18 months period, the arbitral proceedings were delayed primarily at the instance of respondent; and due to procedural delays and due to administrative delays for which parties cannot be made to suffer. The parties have neither objected to the continuance of arbitral proceedings beyond permissible period nor placed any material to show that any of the parties had prayed or was granted extension in arbitral proceedings by this Court, earlier. 10. Respondent No.1-NHAI cannot be permitted to raise the plea of delay and laches when, indisputably similar extension was given to other similarly placed landowners. Once the parties to 10 2026:HHC:801 arbitral proceedings, including the Respondents-NHAI had participated in arbitral proceedings beyond permissible period, therefore, the mandate of the Statute, [i.e. Arbitration and Conciliation Act] was to be given a meaningful life, so as to make it workable and practicable. Further, once the non-conclusion of the arbitral proceedings was not attributable to the petitioner; therefore, the Respondents-NHAI cannot be permitted to raise the plea of delay and laches so as to defeat the object and intent of the Enactment but efforts should be to make it practical and pragmatic, so as to enable the parties to settle their disputes by alternative resolution, in an effective, efficient and expedient manner by arbitration. In these circumstances, sufficient cause for enlargement of time for concluding the arbitral proceedings is made out, in facts of instant case. 11. Parties are also ad idem that based on the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. and Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited (supra) the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in Arbitration Case No.22 of 2025, titled as Ghanshyam Mahajan versus Land Acquisition 11 2026:HHC:801 Officer-cum-Competent Authority & Ors., decided on 07.03.2025. Likewise, Learned Counsel(s) place reliance on the judgments passed by this Court in Arbitration Case No.811 of 2024; In re; Hari Ram Versus Collector Land Acquisition National Highways Authority of India & Others, decided on 20.06.2025; Arbitration Case No.126 of 2025, In Re; Hari Singh Saini & Anr. Versus Land Acquisition Officer & Another, decided on 27.06.2025; Arbitration Case No.332 of 2025, In Re; Meena Kumari Versus The Land Acquisition Officer and another, decided on 19.11.2025; and Arbitration Case No.384 of 2025, In Re; Balak Ram Versus Secretary National Highway Authority Delhi and another, decided on 23.12.2025, whereby, the mandate of Learned Arbitrator was extended by this Court, with directions to conclude the arbitral proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. DIRECTIONS: 12. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the object and intent 12 2026:HHC:801 of arbitral proceedings, this Court allows the instant petition, in the following terms:- (i) Order dated 05.04.2023 [Annexure P-1] in Case No.39 of 2019 by Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla is quashed and set aside; (ii) Arbitrator- cum- Divisional Commissioner Shimla is mandated to complete the arbitral proceedings and to pass the Award in accordance with law within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment; and (iii) Costs made easy for respective parties. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition stands disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge January 02, 2026 [Bhardwaj]