Krishan Pal v. The Land Acquisition Collector & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Dec 2025
- Bench
- SATYEN VAIDYA
- Neutral citation
- 2025:HHC:43987
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. The petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 17th December, 2025 (kck) (Satyen Vaidya) Judge
Judgment
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Baldev Negi, Addl.A.G., respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, CGC, for respondent No.2. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 29 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of time to conclude the arbitration proceedings.
The parties were contesting the claim of each other in arbitration proceedings under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act being Reference Petition No. NH-70(38/23) before the Arbitrator i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2-
On 16.01.2025, the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi had recorded the following order:- “Today this case was fixed for arguments but from the perusal of the case file, it transpired that mandate to decide this case has already expired on
03.01.2025. Parties are at liberty to apply to the competent Court of law for extension of time if permissible under the law. The case file be consigned to the GRR after due completion.
It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has been diligently participating in the arbitration proceedings and the same could not be completed for various other reasons in which the petitioner was not involved. In this manner, the plea raised by the petitioner is that the delay in completion of arbitral proceedings cannot be attributed to him.
On the other hand, respondent No.2 has filed the reply and has tried to put the blame on the petitioner in getting the proceedings delayed.
Noticeably, none of the parties have placed on record any material to suggest the reason for delay in completion of arbitral proceedings. Since the petitioner has approached the Arbitrator for enhanced awarded amount, inferably, it will not be in his interest to delay the proceedings. -3- In any case, the record reveals that the arbitration proceedings had reached the final stage and the case was listed for arguments before the Arbitrator. In this view of the matter, I find it to be a fit case for grant of indulgence to avoid the injustice to the parties.
Operative part
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The time for completion of arbitration proceedings is extended by three months, keeping in view the fact that the proceedings are at final stage and after hearing of arguments, the Arbitrator has to pronounce the award only.
The parties are directed to remain present before the Arbitrator on 5.01.2025.
The petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 17th December, 2025 (kck) (Satyen Vaidya) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 29(4).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 17 Dec 2025. The bench was SATYEN VAIDYA.
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.