CR-4017-2011(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 201 MAN SINGH HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD CORAM : HON’BLE MS. Present : Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Vikas, Advocate for Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate for the respondent. LAPITA BANERJI, J. 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the award dated December 20, 2007 passed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1940 Act”) was not made a decree of the Court as envisaged under Section 14 of the the said award being declared a decree of the Court, no execution of the award was permissible under the applicable law. Therefore, he prays for setting aside of the order dated May 24, 2011. 2. An opportunity to file an respondent/decree holder by the pre appropriate application under Section 14 the respondent/decree holder. 2011(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4017-2011(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : Versus ARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Vikas, Advocate for Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate for the respondent. LAPITA BANERJI, J.(ORAL) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the award dated December 20, 2007 passed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1940 Act”) was not made a decree of the Court as envisaged under Section 14 of the the said award being declared a decree of the Court, no execution of the award was permissible under the applicable law. Therefore, he prays for setting aside of the order dated May 24, 2011. An opportunity to file an affid respondent/decree holder by the previous appropriate application under Section 14 of the 1940 Act the respondent/decree holder. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 2011(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 01.07.2026 …PETITIONER ARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD …RESPONDENT JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate for the respondent. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the award dated December 20, 2007 passed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1940 Act”) was not made a decree of the Court as envisaged under Section 14 of the 1940 Act. Therefore, before the said award being declared a decree of the Court, no execution of the award was permissible under the applicable law. Therefore, he prays for setting aside of the order dated May 24, 2011. affidavit was given to the Bench, to explain why an of the 1940 Act was not filed by PRINCE SAINI 2026.07.02 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4017-2011(O&M) 3. Upon perusal of the compliance affidavit, it transpire respondent-Board was under a mistaken belief that the applicable A execution of the award was (hereinafter referred to as “the 1996 Act”) and not the 1940 Act since the petitioner/judgment debtor had Section 34 of the 1996 Act 4. Upon r made an appropriate application before the Learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal on Septem decree of Court 5. In view of the undisputed facts recorded above, this Court has no option but to set aside the impugned order dated May 24, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal. 6. Disposed of. JULY 01, 2026 Prince Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : 2011(O&M) Upon perusal of the compliance affidavit, it transpire oard was under a mistaken belief that the applicable A execution of the award was the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1996 Act”) and not the 1940 Act since the petitioner/judgment debtor had mistakenly filed an application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act for setting aside of Upon realising their error, the award made an appropriate application before the Learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal on September 25, 2025 for pronouncing the award as a decree of Court. The said application is still pending adjudication. In view of the undisputed facts recorded above, this Court has no option but to set aside the impugned order dated May 24, 2011 passed the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal. Disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Upon perusal of the compliance affidavit, it transpires that the oard was under a mistaken belief that the applicable Act for Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1996 Act”) and not the 1940 Act since the mistakenly filed an application under for setting aside of the award. ealising their error, the award holder-Board has now made an appropriate application before the Learned Additional District for pronouncing the award as a . The said application is still pending adjudication. In view of the undisputed facts recorded above, this Court has no option but to set aside the impugned order dated May 24, 2011 passed the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal. (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE PRINCE SAINI 2026.07.02 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document