2026:HHC:7373 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 33/2026 Decided on: 12.03.2026 M/s Oasis Enterprises …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Addl. A.G. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) The present petition under Section 29-A (4) read with Section 29A (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time to the Arbitral Tribunal to complete the arbitral proceedings. 2 It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arbitration proceedings were initiated at the instance of the petitioner, who is a government contractor, enlisted with the respondent/State. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 3 This Court vide its order dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) in Arbitration Petition No. 561/2023, titled as M/s Oasis Enterprises vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, while deciding the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, appointed the sole Arbitrator namely, Solan Lal Sharma, District and Sessions Judge (Retired). Thereafter, on 6.11.2025 when the case was taken up by the learned Arbitrator, it was observed that the award was to be passed on or before 21.06.2025 but on account of non-payment of fees, it was not possible on the part of the learned Arbitrator to pass the award, therefore, the learned Arbitrator extended time for passing of the award on or before 20.12.2025. 4. The case file reveals that the case was listed before the learned Arbitrator on 20.12.2025, on which date it was observed by the learned Arbitrator that the respondents have not deposited the requisite fee on account of non-availability of funds. It has been further observed that since time of six months has elapsed, further time would be liable to be extended by this Court under Section 29A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 3 5 Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, has stated that he has no objection in case the time is extended for conclusion of the arbitral proceedings. 6 In the attending facts and circumstances and in view of the averments made in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, time for completion of the arbitral proceedings is extended up to 12.09.2026. 5 The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Romesh Verma) 12.03.2026 Judge (pankaj)