Himachal Pradesh High Court
ARB.C/254/2026 on 6 November 2026
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:49249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Arb. Case No. 254/2026
Decided on: 06.11.2026
Purshotam Dass
…..Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & ors.
….Respondents ______________________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Janak Raj, Central Government
Counsel, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Addl. A.G. for
respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)
The present petition under Section 29-A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time for completion of the arbitration proceedings in Reference Petition No. 333/2023, titled as Purshotam Dass vs. Union of India & ors., pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, exercising 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956.
The arbitral dispute has arisen out of the land acquired in District Kangra, H.P. for the purpose of construction of the National Highway, land for which has been acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956.
Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the competent authority, the landowner has preferred Arbitration Reference Petition No. 333/2023, before the Arbitrator-cum- Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, H.P., and non adjudication of the arbitral proceedings within the statutory period has resulted in filing of the instant petition.
The Reference Petition against the Award was filed by the land owner in the year 2023. According to the petitioner, on account of unforeseen circumstances in the case, which resulted in unnecessary delay in the announcement of the award by the Arbitrator.
This Court has gone through the material available on record carefully and finds that the proceedings have been conducted by the Arbitrator in violation of statutory provisions, as contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This Court is of the view that when a statute envisages an authority, be it an Arbitrator, to do a particular act in a particular manner and in a prescribed time schedule, then the onus is upon the said authority/Arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to it within the time schedule prescribed in the statute. The delay, if any, has to be bonafide and explainable. However, in the present petition even after completion of the pleadings, the learned Arbitrator has closed the proceedings since the time limit for arbitral proceedings to pass an award had elapsed.
In view of aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration the attending facts and circumstance of the instant case, the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, H.P., exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956 is directed to conclude the arbitral proceedings and to pass the arbitral award in Reference Petition No. 333/2023, titled as Purshotam Dass vs. Union of India & ors., on or before 06.05.2027.
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Romesh Verma) 06.11.2026
Judge (pankaj)