Himachal Pradesh High Court
ARB.A/239/2026 of NHAI Vs SANJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS on 11 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arb. Appeal No. 239/2026 Decided on: 11.08.2026 National Highway Authority of India …..Appellant Versus Sanjay Kumar & ors. ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
2026:HHC:35249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Arb. Appeal No. 239/2026
Decided on: 11.08.2026
National Highway Authority of India …..Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Kumar & ors.
….Respondents ______________________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Hemant Vaid, Advocate, for
respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Addl. A.G. for
respondent No.5.
Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)
The present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) has been filed by the appellant-NHAI, against the order dated 02.12.2024, as passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, whereby on account of death of respondent No.4, Ram Dass, application filed by the appellant/NHAI under Section 34 of the Act has been dismissed as a whole.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
In the present appeal, notices were issued to the respondents on 20.04.2026 and Mr. Hemant Vaid, Advocate, put in appearance for private respondents.
Today, matter was fixed for admission and it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order, which has been passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground that since other co-sharers are party respondents in the proceedings, therefore, the application filed by the appellant/NHAI under Section 34 of the Act could not have abated as a whole.
To her such submission, Mr. Hemant Vaid, learned counsel for the private respondents has vehemently argued that appropriate remedy available to the appellant was to have filed an application for setting aside the abatement instead of straightway approaching this Court by filing the instant petition.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant seeks and is granted permission to withdraw the instant appeal with liberty to avail appropriate remedy, as is available to the appellant in accordance with law, before the learned District Judge, Mandi.
In view of above, the instant appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the appellant, as aforesaid. Needless to say that the appellant shall be entitled to get benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Romesh Verma) 11.08.2026
Judge (pankaj)