1. ( 2026:HHC:18149 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA OMP(M) No.362 of 2025 Date of Decision:-18.05.2026 NHAI …Applicant Versus Rup Lal Verma and Ors. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, vice Mr. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral): Applicant-National Highways Authority of India, has filed the accompanying appeal, against the judgment dated 01.08.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), in Arbitration Case No.116 of 2023, titled as National Highways Authority of India versus Rup Lal Verma and others. 2. By way of judgment dated 01.08.2024, the learned First Appellate Court, has dismissed the objections, filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, by the applicant. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. ( 2026:HHC:18149 ) 3. Since the appeal has been filed, after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application for condonation of delay has been filed. 4. As per application, there is delay of about 240 days, in preferring the accompanying appeal, which, as per the office report is 249 days. The delay has been sought to be condoned, on the ground, that the copy of the judgment dated 01.08.2024, was applied by the counsel on 27.09.2024 and the same was received on 14.10.2024 and delivered on 22.10.2024. However, according to the applicant, disposal of the case was not within the knowledge of the applicant, as the same was never intimated by the counsel to the applicant. Earlier the cases were dealt with by M/s M.V. Kini & Co. and due to their inefficiency, 362 cases, were allotted to M/s Nishaank Mattoo & Associates, vide letter dated 20.09.2023. 5. The delay has also been sought on the ground that the applicant was under bonafide belief that the case is pending before the learned First Appellate Court, however, on closing of the year 2024-25, the applicant inquired from the firm, about the pendency of the remaining cases, then, it has been informed that the objections pertaining to Mohal 3. ( 2026:HHC:18149 ) Dehar have been disposed of. The delay has been attributed to the non intimation regarding the case by their advocate. 6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to condone the delay. 7. Application is duly supported by the affidavit Project Director of National Highways Authority of India. 8. The letter written to M/s Nishaank Mattoo & Associates has been annexed with the application. 9. When, put to notice, this application has been contested by filing reply. In the reply, preliminary objections have been taken that the applicant is not able to make out a case, which falls within the definition of sufficient cause, as there is extra ordinary delay of about 240 days. The applicant is stated to be grossly negligent in pursuing the matter. 10. On merits, the factual position, as mentioned, in the application has been contested, however, the transfer of the cases from M/s M.V Kini & Co. to M/s Nishaank Mattoo & Associates, is stated to be internal matter of the applicant. 11. According to the respondents, the stand taken by the applicant, qua bonafide belief, is not available to the 4. ( 2026:HHC:18149 ) applicant, as he is having the dedicated legal cell to lookafter the litigation. 12. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 13. Heard. 14. The applicant is a personal machinery and acts through human agency. The cases were earlier looked after by M/s M.V. Kini & Co. and vide letter Annexure A-2, the cases were assigned to M/s Nishaank Mattoo & Associates. 15. Although, in the preliminary objections, it has been averred that there is negligence, but, the reply is totally silent about the object, which the applicant is going to achieve, in not preferring the appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation, had the applicant would not prevented to do so, on account of the reasons, as mentioned, in the application. 16. Moreover, the applicant is not going to achieve anything, in not preferring the appeal, within the period of limitation, as the objections, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, were rejected by the learned First Appellate Court. 5. ( 2026:HHC:18149 ) 17. Considering the above factual position, this Court is of the view that the applicant is able to bring its case, within the purview of ‘sufficient cause’. A hyper technical approach should be avoided, while, decide such type of matters and liberal approach has to be adopted, as the matter should be decided on merits and not on the basis of technicalities, such as limitation. 18. In view of the above, the applicant is able to make out a case in its favour to condone the delay. Consequently, the application, under consideration, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. The application stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge May 18, 2026 (subhash)