Court Sets Aside District Judge's Order, Reinforces Procedural Nature of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has reinstated an arbitral award that had been set aside by the District Judge of Mandi on technical grounds. The High Court, in its judgment dated April 30, 2026, clarified that under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the consent to extend the time limit for making an arbitral award does not necessarily need to be express or in writing. Participation in the arbitration proceedings without protest is sufficient to imply consent.
The case, Meenakshi and others v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), revolved around the acquisition of land for the construction and four-laning of National Highway-21. The landowners sought enhanced compensation, which was granted by the arbitrator. However, NHAI challenged the award on the grounds that it was delivered beyond the permissible time limit without express consent for extension.
Justice Virender Singh of the Himachal Pradesh High Court underscored the procedural nature of Section 29A, reiterating its retrospective application. The judgment emphasized that the conduct of NHAI, which participated in the arbitration proceedings without raising any objections about the time extension, implied their consent. Thus, the award issued on October 31, 2017, was deemed valid and within the permissible timeframe.
The court found the District Judge's approach to be overly technical, noting that the absence of a written consent did not invalidate the arbitration process. The High Court's decision reinforces the procedural flexibility within arbitration proceedings, aiming to prevent legitimate claims from being defeated by technicalities.
The High Court has remanded the matter back to the District Judge, instructing a reconsideration of the objections under Section 34 of the Act on their merits. The parties have been directed to appear before the District Judge on May 25, 2026.
Bottom line:-
Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not mandate that the consent to extend the time for making an arbitral award must be express or in writing. Participation in arbitral proceedings without protest can imply consent.
Statutory provision(s): Section 29A, Section 34, Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Meenakshi v. National Highways Authority of India, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2915198
