M/S R H MECHATRONICS PVT LTD v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
CWP/19591/2025 · 2025-07-24
Suvir Sehgal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 75440 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 75440 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CWP-19591-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CWP-19591-2025 Date of Decision:24.07.2025 M/S R. H. MECHATRONICS PVT. LTD. ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravish Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Haryana. *** SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. By way of instant writ petition, petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to comply with the provisions of Section 18 (5) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, (for short “MSMED”) and to adjudicate the dispute raised by the petitioner.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made a reference under Section 18 of MSMED, which was referred to an Arbitrator Sheetal 2025.07.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-19591-2025 -2- and she has given a recommendation on 13.04.2025. Counsel submits that despite the fact that the recommendations have been received by the counsel, no action has been taken and award has not been passed in terms of the Act.
3. Advance copy of the petition has been served upon the respondents.
4. Upon instructions, State counsel has produced a printout of email dated 24.07.2025 and states that both the parties have been issued notices to submit their written objections, if any, within a period of 15 days.
5. In view of the above development, prayer made in the petition has become infructuous and the petition is disposed of as such.
6. However, noticing that the recommendation has been pending with respondent No.3 since the last more than three months, respondent No.3 is directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 24.07.2025 (SUVIR SEHGAL) sheetal
JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Sheetal 2025.07.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh