NHAI v. Roop Lal OMP
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
applications are disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. Heard. Subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount by the applicant within six weeks from today, the judgment dated 15.11.2021, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Arbitration Petition No.91 of 2018, shall remained stayed. The application to stand…
Judgment
Mr. Suneet Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate, for the respondents. OMP(M) Nos. 202 and 203 of 2024 Despite grant of repeated opportunities, the application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings, ordered on 11.03.2025, has not been filed, hence, in such circumstances, the present applications are taken up for consideration. Learned counsel appearing for proposed legal heirs of the deceased-respondent has been heard, who has no objection for allowing the application.
Operative part
In view of the pleadings and submissions made for by learned counsel for the parties, OMP(M) No.203/2024 for condoning delay in moving the application, is allowed. Accordingly, OMP(M) No.202/2024, for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased-respondent-Roop Lal, is also allowed. The legal heirs, detailed in para-4 of the OMP(M) No. 202/2024, are ordered to be brought on record. Both the applications are disposed of. Amended memo of parties be filed within two weeks. Registry to carry out necessary corrections in the cause title. OMP(M) No. 109/2023
The applicant this application condonation of delay in instituting the Arbitration Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act in short).
Heard learned counsel on both sides and considered the case file as well as pleadings for and against the condonation of delay.
The case of the applicant is that the judgment was pronounced by learned District Judge, Mandi on
15.11.2021, whereby the objection petition preferred by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act was dismissed and the award passed on 07.12.2017 by the Divisional Commissioner was affirmed. The certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied for by the applicant on 15.11.2021, which was prepared on 25.11.2021 and made available to the applicant on
06.12.2021. The applicant got approval from its higher officers to file the appeal against the judgment dated 15.11.2021. It has also been mentioned in the application that the office underwent organizational changes in the month of June, 2022. The Director of the Project was appointed on 01.06.2022. Due to these exigencies, there was delay in instituting the appeal.
On perusing the application, I am satisfied that the applicant had genuine and sufficient reasons for not instituting the appeal in time. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application to stand disposed. Arb. Appeal No.________/2025
Be registered.
Mr. Suneet Verma, learned vice counsel, accepts notice on behalf of newly impleaded respondents. List for consideration after six weeks. OMP No.________/2025
Be registered.
Heard. Subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount by the applicant within six weeks from today, the judgment dated 15.11.2021, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Arbitration Petition No.91 of 2018, shall remained stayed. The application to stand disposed of. 30th June, 2025 (rohit) Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: applications are disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 37.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.