CR-1582-2004(O&M) and CR IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 202 1. CR-1582 STATE OF PUNJAB M/S SHARMA 2. CR-1583 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS M/S SHARMA & ASSOCIATES CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Mr. LAPITA BANERJI, J. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are that the position of law with regard to the validity of the District Judges appointing learned Arbitrator Conciliation Act, 1996 when they were designated by the Chief Justice of the High Court concern the Constitutional Bench in Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another 2. In the present civil revisions, learned Arbitrator was appoi on December 19, 2003, which was prior to the judgment of (supra). Therefore, such appointment was valid and nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the present civil revisions. Accordingly, 2004(O&M) and CR-1583-2004(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION : 1582-2004(O&M) PUNJAB AND OTHERS Versus M/S SHARMA & ASSOCIATES 1583-2004(O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Versus M/S SHARMA & ASSOCIATES HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Surya Kumar Yadav, AAG, Punjab Mr. Abhishek Kansal, Advocate for the respondent. LAPITA BANERJI, J.(ORAL) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are that the position of law with regard to the validity of the District Judges appointing learned Arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when they were designated by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, will be governed by the position of law stated by the Constitutional Bench in judgment dated October 26, 2005 Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another” reported in In the present civil revisions, learned Arbitrator was appoi on December 19, 2003, which was prior to the judgment of (supra). Therefore, such appointment was valid and nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the present civil revisions. Accordingly, 2004(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DATE OF DECISION : 15.07.2026 …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI AAG, Punjab for the petitioners. Abhishek Kansal, Advocate for the respondent. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are ad idem that the position of law with regard to the validity of the District Judges under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when they were designated by the Chief Justice of e governed by the position of law stated by judgment dated October 26, 2005 “SBP & Co. reported in (2005) 8 SCC 618. In the present civil revisions, learned Arbitrator was appointed on December 19, 2003, which was prior to the judgment of SBP & Co. (supra). Therefore, such appointment was valid and nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the present civil revisions. Accordingly, CR-1582-2004 PRINCE SAINI 2026.07.17 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1582-2004(O&M) and CR and CR-1583-2004 3. Connected application(s), if any, 4. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. JULY 15, 2026 Prince Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : 2004(O&M) and CR-1583-2004(O&M) 2004 are disposed of. Connected application(s), if any, Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. , 2026 speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 2004(O&M) Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE PRINCE SAINI 2026.07.17 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document