Hans Raj v. NHAI & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the time limit for
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the time limit for completing the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Reference Case No. 417 of 2018, in case titled as Hans Raj vs. NHAI and another, pending before the learned Divisional Commissioner-cum- Arbitrator, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. is…
Judgment
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.G for respondent No.2. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) Notice. Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate and Ms. Sharmila Patial, learned Additional Advocate General, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.
The instant petition has been filed under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for extension of time of the mandate of the Arbitrator.
From the averments made in the petition, I am fully satisfied that the petitioner has been pursuing his case honestly, diligently and sincerely by taking all necessary and requisite steps 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:3762 ) for the progress of the case and has not sought any un-necessary adjournments.
Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, the petition for extension of time deserves to be allowed.
Operative part
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the time limit for completing the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Reference Case No. 417 of 2018, in case titled as Hans Raj vs. NHAI and another, pending before the learned Divisional Commissioner-cum- Arbitrator, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. is extended by a period of six months and the Arbitrator shall now ensure that the proceedings are completed by passing an award by or before
31.08.2025. February 28, 2025 (naveen) ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the time limit for
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 28 Feb 2025. The bench was TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN.
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.