Himachal Pradesh High Court
ARB.C/130/2026 of THE A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LTD Vs HPSEBL on 10 July 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 130 of 2026 Date of decision: 10.07.2026. A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. ...Petitioner. Versus HPSEB Ltd. ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner :
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:28235
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Arb. Case No. 130 of 2026
Date of decision: 10.07.2026. A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd.
...Petitioner.
Versus HPSEB Ltd.
...Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate.
Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking extension of time for making of award by six months in the arbitration inter-se A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 24.11.2023 allowed the application filed under Section 11 (6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute inter-se the parties.
3. Mr. D.K. Sharma, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) was appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
the parties. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was listed before the sole Arbitrator on 26.05.2026, when the petitioner was directed to file an appropriate application for extension of time.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in case the application is allowed and the time is extended by six more months to adjudicate the dispute inter-se the parties.
5. In view of the averments as made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit the petition is allowed. The time to conclude the arbitration proceedings is extended for six months from today.
6. The petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Romesh Verma)
Judge 10th July, 2026. (kck)