Smt. Meena Devi vs Union Of India And Others on 5 September, 2023

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Smt. Meena Devi vs Union Of India And Others on 5 September, 2023

Bench: Satyen Vaidya

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                 Arb. Case No. 594 of 2023
                                                 Decided on: 05.09.2023




                                                                     .

     Smt. Meena Devi                                             ....Petitioner.

                                         Versus





     Union of India and Others.
                                                                 ...Respondents.




                                           of
     Coram
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
     Whether approved for reporting?1
                 rt
     For the petitioner          :       Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate.
     For the respondents         :       Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for

                                         respondents No.1, 2 and 5.

                                 :       Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional
                                         Advocate General, for respondents
                                         No. 3 and 4.



     Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, a prayer has been made to extend the mandate of Arbitrator, under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. It is averred that the Arbitrator had entered into a reference in the year 2018. The proceedings could not be concluded and in the meantime the COVID-19 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 21:40:23 :::CIS 2

Pandemic prevailed resulting in further delay. Finally, on 26.05.2023 the Arbitrator has terminated the .

proceedings on the premise that the same could not be completed within the period prescribed under Section 29A (1) of the Act.

3. Reply on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 5

of has been filed. The factual position has not been seriously disputed. Even otherwise, the Court can take rt notice of the fact that a period of about two years had been consumed by the conditions that had prevailed on account of COVID-19 Pandemic. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had also suo moto passed an order whereby the limitation for all judicial proceedings was extended.

4. It can also be seen that the termination of arbitration proceedings prematurely, merely on technical ground, will not serve the interest of justice.

5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The mandate of Arbitrator is extended for a period of six months from the date of passing of this order. Parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 29.09.2023. It is clarified that respondents No. 1, 2 and 5 shall be at ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 21:40:23 :::CIS 3 liberty to contest the liability, if any, on their part to pay interest for the period of delay.

6. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, (if any).

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge of 5th September, 2023 (sushma) rt ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 21:40:23 :::CIS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court