Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajiv Negi vs The Chief Engineer (Sz) & Another on 9 July, 2026
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 2026:HHC:27969
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Arb. Case No. : 128 of 2026
.
Decided on : 09.07.2026
Rajiv Negi ...Applicant
Versus
The Chief Engineer (SZ) & Another ...Respondents
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
rt
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the applicant : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Singh
Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional
Advocate General, assisted by Mr.
Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna
Patial, Deputy Advocates General.
Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)
Applicant has filed the present application,
under Section 29-A (4) and (5) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’),
seeking indulgence of this Court to extend the time to
conclude the arbitration proceedings in Ref. Arbitration
Case No. 513 of 2024, titled as Rajiv Negi versus The Chief
1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:41:37 :::CIS
2 2026:HHC:27969
Engineer (South Zone), HPPWD, Shimla & Another,
pending adjudication before the Justice B.S. Walia (Retd.),
.
Former Judge, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Sole
Arbitrator (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Arbitrator’).
2. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present
application, before this Court, may be summed up, as
of
under:
2.1. The
rt respondent-department had floated atender for ‘Construction of 5/7 metre wide road from
Kharela to Krangla 0/000 to 7/500 (SH: formation cutting
of 5/7 metre wide road, construction so retaining
walls/breast walls, cross drainage works, construction of
catch water drain, essential parapets, providing and laying
Kharanja stone soling at various RDs, and construction of
dumping structures from Km 0/000 to 7/500), under
NABARD RIDF-XXV, Agreement No.76 of 2020-21.
2.2. During the extended time, for completion of the
work, the respondents closed Agreement No.76 of 2020-21,
by invoking clauses 3(ii), 3(iii) and 3(iv). Thereafter, the
claimant issued legal notice requesting the respondent-
department to appoint Arbitrator, in terms of Clause 25 of
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:41:37 :::CIS
3 2026:HHC:27969
the agreement, however, no action was taken on the
request of the petitioner. As such, petition, registered as
.
Arbitration Case No.513 of 2024, under Section 11(6) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, was filed before this
Court, and vide order dated 20.09.2024, Justice B.S. Walia
(Retd.), Former Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court,
of
was appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute
between the parties.
rt
2.3. The proceedings were initiated by the learned
Arbitrator, by issuing notice to the parties for 04.11.2024,
for preliminary hearing through Video Conferencing.
3. Since, the period of twelve months, as provided
under Section 29-A(1) of the Act to pass the Arbitral Award
has expired, as also the extended period of six months, as
provided, under Section 29-A(3) of the Act, is going to
expire on 13.07.2026, the present petition has been filed
seeking indulgence of this Court to extend the time, for a
further period of six months.
4. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to extend the time, by six months, for
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:41:37 :::CIS
4 2026:HHC:27969
completion of the arbitral proceedings, before the learned
Arbitrator.
.
5. The factual position, as asserted in the
application, has not been disputed, by the learned
Additional Advocate General.
6. As per the averments, made in the application,
of
though arguments, in the proceedings have been heard,
however, the case is now ordered to be listed for
rt
clarification on 09.07.2026.
7. From the above facts, it is crystal clear that the
case was listed on 09.07.2026, before the learned
Arbitrator, for clarification, however, the award could not
be passed only on account of the fact that the statutory
period has already elapsed.
8. The applicant is before this Court, under
Section 29A (4) (5) of the Act. The relevant provisions of
Section 29A of the Act, are reproduced, as under:
“29A. Time limit for arbitral award. — (1)
The award in matters other than international
commercial arbitration shall be made by the
arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve
months from the date of completion of
pleadings under sub-section (4) of section 23.
Provided that the award in the matter of
international commercial arbitration may be::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:41:37 :::CIS
5 2026:HHC:27969made as expeditiously as possible and
endeavor may be made to dispose of the
matter within a period of twelve months from
the date of completion of pleadings under sub-
.
section (4) of section 23.
(2) If the award is made within a period of six
months from the date the arbitral tribunalenters upon the reference, the arbitral tribunal
shall be entitled to receive such amount of
additional fees as the parties may agree.
of
(3) The parties may, by consent, extend the
period specified in sub-section (1) for making
award for a further period not exceeding six
months.
rt
(4) If the award is not made within the period
specified in sub-section (1) or the extendedperiod specified under sub-section (3), the
mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate
unless the Court has, either prior to or after the
expiry of the period so specified, extended the
period:
Provided that while extending the period under
this sub-section, if the Court finds that theproceedings have been delayed for the
reasons attributable to the arbitral tribunal,
then, it may order reduction of fees ofarbitrator(s) by not exceeding five per cent. for
each month of such delay:
Provided further that where an application
under sub-section (5) is pending, the mandate
of the arbitrator shall continue till the disposal
of the said application:
Provided also that the arbitrator shall be given
an opportunity of being heard before the fees
is reduced.
(5) The extension of period referred to in sub-
section (4) may be on the application of any of
the parties and may be granted only for
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:41:37 :::CIS
6 2026:HHC:27969
sufficient cause and on such terms and
conditions as may be imposed by the Court.
(6) While extending the period referred to in
.
sub-section (4), it shall be open to the Court to
substitute one or all of the arbitrators and if
one or all of the arbitrators are substituted, the
arbitral proceedings shall continue from the
stage already reached and on the basis of the
evidence and material already on record, and
the arbitrator(s) appointed under this section
shall be deemed to have received the said
of
evidence and material.
(7) In the event of arbitrator(s) being appointed
under this section, the arbitral tribunal thus
rt
reconstituted shall be deemed to be in
continuation of the previously appointed
arbitral tribunal.
(8) It shall be open to the Court to impose
actual or exemplary costs upon any of the
parties under this section.
(9) An application filed under sub-section (5)
shall be disposed of by the Court as
expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall
be made to dispose of the matter within a
period of sixty days from the date of service of
notice on the opposite party.”
9. The bare perusal of sub-clause (4) of Section
29-A of the Act demonstrates that the period can be
extended either prior to or after the expiry of the period, so
specified. Meaning thereby, the time limit for passing the
arbitral award can be extended by this Court, even after
the expiry of the period, so specified, in Section 29-A (1)
and (3) of the Act.
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:41:37 :::CIS
7 2026:HHC:27969
10. The provisions of Section 29-A (4) and (5) have
elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
.
in its recent decision in Rohan Builders (India) Private
Limited versus Berger Paints India Limited, reported in
(2025) 10 Supreme Court Cases 802. Relevant paras-19
to 23 of the said judgment, are reproduced, as under:
of
“19. Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd. v. Berger
Paints India Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2645,
highlights that an interpretation allowing an
rt
extension application post the expiry period
would encourage rogue litigants and render the
timeline for making the award inconsequential.
However, it is apposite to note that under Section
29-A(5), the power of the court to extend the time
is to be exercised only in cases where there is
sufficient cause for such extension. Such
extension is not granted mechanically on filing of
the application. The judicial discretion of the
court in terms of the enactment acts as a
deterrent against any party abusing the process
of law or espousing a frivolous or vexatious
application. Further, the court can impose terms
and conditions while granting an extension.
Delay, even on the part of the Arbitral Tribunal,
is not countenanced {H.P. Singh v. Northern
Railways, 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 1255}. The
first proviso to Section 29-A(4) permits a fee
reduction of up to five per cent for each month of
delay attributable to the Arbitral Tribunal.
20. Lastly, Section 29-A(6) does not support the
narrow interpretation while deciding an of the
expression “terminate”. It states that the court
extension application under Section 29-A(4) –
may substitute one or all the arbitrators. Section
29-A(7) states that if a new arbitrator(s) is
appointed, the reconstituted Arbitral Tribunal
shall be deemed to be in continuation of the
previously appointed Arbitral Tribunal. This
obliterates the need to file a fresh application
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:41:37 :::CIS
8 2026:HHC:27969
under Section 11 of the A&C Act for the
appointment of an arbitrator. In the event of
substitution of arbitrator(s), the arbitral
proceedings will commence from the stage
.
already reached. Evidence or material already
on record is deemed to be received by the newly
constituted tribunal. The aforesaid deeming
provisions underscore the legislative intent to
effectuate efficiency and expediency in the
arbitral process. This intent is also demonstrated
in Sections 29-A(8) and 29-A(9). The court in
terms of Section 29-A(8) has the power to impose
of
actual or exemplary costs upon the parties.
Lastly, Section 29-A(9) stipulates that an
application for extension under sub-section (5)
must be disposed of expeditiously, with the
endeavour of doing so within sixty days from the
rt
date of filing.
21. As per the second proviso to Section 29-A(4),
the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal continues
where an application under sub-section (5) is
pending. However, an application for extension
of period of the Arbitral Tribunal is to be decided
by the court in terms of sub-section (5), and sub-
sections (6) to (8) may be invoked. The power to
extend time period for making of the award vests
with the court, and not with the Arbitral
Tribunal. Therefore, the Arbitral Tribunal may
not pronounce the award till an application
under d Section 29-A(5) of the A&C Act is sub
judice before the court. In a given case, where an
award is pronounced during the pendency of an
application for extension of period of the Arbitral
Tribunal, the court must still decide the
application under sub-section (5), and may even,
where an award has been pronounced, invoke,
when required and justified, sub-sections (6) to
(8), or the first and third proviso to Section 29-
A(4) of the A&C Act.
22. While interpreting a statute, we must strive
to give meaningful life to an enactment or rule
and avoid cadaveric consequences that result in
unworkable or impracticable scenarios. 26 An
interpretation which produces an unreasonable
result is not to be imputed to a statute if there is
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:41:37 :::CIS
9 2026:HHC:27969
some other equally possible construction which
is acceptable, practical and pragmatic.
23. In view of the above discussion, we hold that
.
an application for extension of the time period for
passing an arbitral award under Section 29-A(4)
read with Section 29-A(5) is maintainable even
after the expiry of the twelve-month or the
extended six-month period, as the case may be.
The court while adjudicating such extension
applications will be guided by the principle of
sufficient cause and our observations in para 19
of
of the judgment.”
11. If, the facts and circumstances of the present
rt
case, are seen, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Rohan Builders‘ case (supra), there is
no hesitation for this Court to hold that the award, in the
present case, could not be passed, by the learned
Arbitrator, on account of the fact that the mandate of the
learned Arbitrator has already expired.
12. As per the stand taken by the parties, the
proceedings could not be completed, due to the
circumstances, which are beyond the ordinary control of
the parties. As per the order dated 29.06.2026, passed by
the learned Arbitrator, the respondents sought time to file
affidavit, in terms of order dated 23.03.2026. Bare reading
of order dated 29.06.2026, makes out a case to extend the
time to conclude the arbitral proceedings.
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:41:37 :::CIS
10 2026:HHC:27969
13. Consequently, the application is allowed and
the learned Arbitrator is directed to culminate the
.
proceedings by or before 31st December, 2026.
14. The application stands disposed of, in above
terms.
of
( Virender Singh )
Judge
July 09, 2026( ps )
rt
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:41:37 :::CIS
