Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

Himachal High Court Warns Arbitrator Over Delays, Extends Deadline in National Highway-21 Compensation Case

11 October 2024 3:54 PM

By: sayum


Himachal Pradesh High Court, in Nand Lal vs. The Land Acquisition Collector, National Highway & Ors., addressed delays in arbitration proceedings concerning the acquisition of land for National Highway 21 in District Mandi. The court extended the mandate of the arbitrator until March 25, 2025, criticizing the arbitral process for breaches of statutory timelines under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The dispute arises from the acquisition of land under the National Highways Act, 1956, for the widening and maintenance of National Highway-21. The petitioner, Nand Lal, contested the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and initiated arbitral proceedings. The arbitration related to Award No. 1/3 dated April 26, 2018, but the case faced repeated adjournments, and the arbitrator's mandate expired without concluding the proceedings.

The petitioner filed for an extension under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which sets strict timelines for concluding arbitration but allows for extensions by court order.

The core issue before the court was whether the arbitrator had violated the statutory time limits under Sections 23 and 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Section 29-A mandates that an arbitral award be rendered within twelve months from the completion of pleadings, with a possible six-month extension if agreed upon by the parties.

Justice Bipin Chander Negi highlighted how the arbitrator repeatedly delayed the proceedings, stating:

"The proceedings have been conducted by the learned Arbitrator by observing statutory provisions… more in their breach rather than in their observance."

The court emphasized that statutory timelines must be adhered to, adding that any further breaches could result in the termination of the arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29-A(6). Nonetheless, the court extended the timeline to avoid prejudice to the petitioner, whose compensation claim had been pending for years.

The court granted an extension for the arbitrator to conclude the proceedings by March 25, 2025. While extending the mandate, the court warned that continued delays would not be tolerated:

"If the Court finds the Arbitrator to be remiss in his duties… it shall not hesitate in invoking its powers… to terminate the mandate of the Arbitrator."

Additionally, the court referenced the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, which allowed for the exclusion of time periods impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The court applied this principle to grant additional time for the arbitration process.

In this ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court extended the arbitrator’s mandate while underscoring the importance of adhering to statutory timelines. The court directed the arbitrator to adhere to a strict timetable and finalize the proceedings by March 2025 to ensure the petitioner receives timely compensation.

Date of Decision: September 25, 2024

Nand Lal vs. The Land Acquisition Collector, National Highway & Ors.​.

Latest Legal News