MS LAKSHMI RICE AND GENERAL MILLS v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
CWP/20441/2025 · 2025-07-21
Harsh Bunger
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 81392 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 81392 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CWP-20441-2025 (O/M) -1- 2025:PHHC:089660 113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20441-2025 (O/M)
Date of decision : 21.07.2025 M/s Lakshmi Rice and General Mills ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :- Mr. Daman Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Senior DAG Punjab. -.- -.- HARSH BUNGER,
J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to process, settle the claims and finalize the accounts of the petitioner-Firm, pertaining to Crop Year 2012-13 and for refund/release of amounts withheld, to which the petitioner-Firm is entitled to alongwith interest at the rate of 13 per cent per annum till its actual payment.
2. During the course of hearing of this petition, it is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner that there was an agreement, executed between the petitioner-Firm and Punjab State Civil Supply Corporation Limited (respondent No. 4), which contained an arbitration clause as regards settlement of accounts claims. 2.1 Apparently, the aforesaid agreement has not been placed on record.
SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2025.07.24 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-20441-2025 (O/M) -2- 2025:PHHC:089660
3. Be that as it may, since the petitioner-Firm is seeking settlement of accounts claims in respect of Crop Year 2012-13 i.e. after a gap of almost 12 years and petitioner-Firm having failed to avail its remedy by invoking arbitration as provided under the agreement executed between the parties for settlement of accounts claims at the relevant time; in my considered view, no relief can be granted to the petitioner-Firm at this stage. The relief sought by the petitioner-Firm clearly suffers from delay and laches.
4. Resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and same is accordingly dismissed.
5. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand closed.
(HARSH BUNGER)
JUDGE 21.07.2025 sjks Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2025.07.24 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document