2026:HHC:3290 2025:HHC:39284 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Arbitration Case No: 19 of 2026 Decided on : 09th January, 2026 __________________________________________________________ Kismat Singh ...Petitioner Versus The Land Acquisition Officer, NHAI and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Karam Pal, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No. 1. Mr. Amit K. Chauhary, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 2 to 4. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Kismat Singh has come up before this Court in instant petition filed under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking following relief(s):- “ That the period from 28.01.2025 onwards may kindly be extended for a reasonable time.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2026:HHC:3290 2025:HHC:39284 - 2 - 2. Upon listing of the case today Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Amit K. Chaudhary, Learned Deputy Advocate General have put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 & respondents No.2 and 3, respectively. They jointly submit that no reply is intended to be filed in the instant matter in view of the fact that in identical matters relating to the same subject extension for mandate has been allowed by this Court. 3. 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, Mandi, (HP) for concluding the arbitral proceedings. 4. In above backdrop, this Court, proceeds to dispose of the instant petition, without the reply having been filed, at this stage itself, which shall only expedite the conclusion of arbitral proceedings, in which parties herein have participated since the year 2023, till the passing of the Impugned Order on 22.02.2025 [Annexure P-1]. 2026:HHC:3290 2025:HHC:39284 - 3 - 5. 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, Mandi, who commenced the arbitral proceedings vide Case No. 12/2023. It is averred that though arbitral proceedings continued since 2023 but Learned Arbitrator passed an order on 22.02.2025 [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 (4) & 5 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, by quashing the order dated 22.02.2025 [Annexure P-1]. 6. Heard, Mr. Karam Pal, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents-National Highway Authority of India and Mr. Amit.K. Chaudhary, Learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 2 to 4. 2026:HHC:3290 2025:HHC:39284 - 4 - 7. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Learned Counsel for the respondents, does not dispute the factual matrix that the arbitral proceedings commenced in the year 2023 and since then, the parties have 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. 8. 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:- 2026:HHC:3290 2025:HHC:39284 - 5 - “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 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 2026:HHC:3290 2025:HHC:39284 - 6 - 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 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 2026:HHC:3290 2025:HHC:39284 - 7 - 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) 9. 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) 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 2026:HHC:3290 2025:HHC:39284 - 8 - 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. This intent is also demonstrated in Sections 29A(8) and 29A(9). The court in terms of Section 2026:HHC:3290 2025:HHC:39284 - 9 - 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 2026:HHC:3290 2025:HHC:39284 - 10 - 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.” 10. Even a perusal of the Statute prescribes that arbitral proceedings are to be completed within 12 months and the 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 2023 till the passing impugned order on 22.02.2025 [Annexure P-1] ,whereby, the mandate of the Learned Arbitrator stood terminated and the 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 2026:HHC:3290 2025:HHC:39284 - 11 - show that any of the parties had prayed or was granted extension in arbitral proceedings by this Court, earlier. 11. Respondents-NHAI cannot be permitted to take the plea of delay and laches when, indisputably similar extension was given to other similarly placed landowners. Once the parties to arbitral proceedings, including the Respondents- NHAI had participated in the arbitral proceedings beyond the 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 2026:HHC:3290 2025:HHC:39284 - 12 - for enlargement of time for concluding the arbitral proceedings is made out, in facts of instant case. 12. Parties are also ad idem that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Arbitration Case No.22 of 2025, titled as Ghanshyam Mahajan versus Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Competent Authority & Ors., decided on 07.03.2025. Likewise, Learned Counsel(s) place reliance on the judgment Arbitration Case No.811 of 2024, titled Hari Ram Versus Collector Land Acquisition National Highways Authority of India & Others, decided on 20.06.2025 and Judgment in Arbitration Case No.126 of 2025 titled 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; Arbitration Case No. 384 of 2025, In Re; Balak Ram Versus Secretary National Highway Authority Delhi and another, decided on 23.12.2025 and Arbitration 2026:HHC:3290 2025:HHC:39284 - 13 - Case No. 367 of 2025, In re; Rajeev Kumar Verma Versus Secretary National High Authority and another, decided on 02.01.2026, 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. 13. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the object and intent of arbitral proceedings, this Court disposes of the instant petition, in the following terms:- (i) Order dated 22.02.2025 [Annexure P-1], in Case No. 12 of 2023 passed by Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, In Re: Kismat Singh Versus National Highway Authority of India is quashed and set aside; (ii) Arbitrator-cum- Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, 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. 2026:HHC:3290 2025:HHC:39284 - 14 - In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is allowed and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also, stand disposed of, accordingly. (Ranjan Sharma) January 09, 2026 Judge [G.M]