2025:HHC:32242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 563 of 2022 Decided on: 17.09.2025 M/s PKF finance Limited … Petitioner Versus Hoshiar Singh and others .… Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : None for the respondent. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) As none is appearing for the respondents, despite the fact that previously they were being represented, accordingly they are proceeded against ex parte. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:- “i) May please to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 04.06.2022 (Annexure P- 4) passed by Ld. District Judge, Una (HP) in Execution Petition No. 43/2022 titled as M/s Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd vs. Hoshiar Singh and others with further direction to decide and adjudicate the execution petition filed by the petitioner Company.” 3. In terms of the order passed by learned Executing 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:32242 Court, the arbitration award has been held to be non-executable in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in TRF Limited vs Energo Engineering Projects Limited, (2017) 8 Supreme Court Cases 377. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner though made an endeavour to demonstrate that the findings returned by learned Executing Court were not sustainable in the eyes of law, however, as the Court was not concurring with the learned Counsel, he submitted that then these proceedings be disposed of but with liberty to the petitioner to either go for arbitration or for some other remedy which is available in law with regard to the issue, for which the arbitrator was appointed. 5. This Court is of the considered view that said request of the petitioner is reasonable. After all, it is settled law that no one can be left remediless. In the present case, as the award passed in favour of the petitioner, has been held to be non-executable on the ground that it is hit by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in TRF Limited (supra), obviously, the petitioner cannot be left remediless and he obviously can have the matter re-agitated in a mode that is permissible in law, including by way of arbitration proceedings. 6. Therefore, this petition is disposed of without interfering with the order under challenge but with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter afresh through a medium which is available to it 3 2025:HHC:32242 in law. 7. It goes without saying that as far as the limitation is concerned, the period which has been spent by the petitioner while pursuing the arbitration proceedings as well as execution and these proceedings shall be taken into consideration by the Authority concerned while computing the limitation. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 17, 2025 (narender)