108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s Arc Projects Pvt Subodh Parkash CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Abhijeet Chaudhary, Advocate for Ms. Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate for the respondent. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has been filed seeking Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar of 2020 titled M/s Arc Projects Pvt. Ltd 2020. 2. It is, the petitioner’s claim directing the respondent within two months failing cent from the date of the award till full payment. The award by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Additional District Judge stay on execution of the award as under: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5829- Date of Decision :26.05.2025 Arc Projects Pvt. Ltd Versus Subodh Parkash HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Abhijeet Chaudhary, Advocate for Ms. Dilmrig Nayani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate for the respondent. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL) The petition has been filed seeking Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, to decide Execution Petition no.295 M/s Arc Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Subodh Parkash It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel the petitioner’s claim stands accepted vide Arbitral award directing the respondent-judgment debtor to pay an amount of within two months failing which it will carry interest at the rate of from the date of the award till full payment. The award by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is still pending Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri execution of the award, granted vide order dated 24.02.2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA -2024 Date of Decision :26.05.2025 …Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Abhijeet Chaudhary, Advocate for Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate for the respondent. The petition has been filed seeking direction to Executing Court/ to decide Execution Petition no.295 Subodh Parkash, pending since learned counsel, Mr. Abhijeet, that Arbitral award, dated 30.06.2020, judgment debtor to pay an amount of ₹4,65,29,995.50 interest at the rate of fourteen per from the date of the award till full payment. The respondent challenged the award by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and pending adjudication before learned , Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. There is a conditional vide order dated 24.02.2021, which is direction to Executing Court/ to decide Execution Petition no.295 pending since that , 4,65,29,995.50 fourteen per challenged the award by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and learned here is a conditional , which is PUSHPINDER SAINI 2025.05.28 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5829-2024 …In view of the aforesaid Arbitral Award dated 30.6.2020 is stayed subject to furnishing of security by petitioner Subodh Parkash within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today. Application, thus, stands disposed off, accordingly. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner respondent has still the execution proceedings have been kept pending granting opportunit time and again to furnish the security, the award is required to be executed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that security in terms of order he is not in a po fact. 5. Heard. 6. It needs to be noted that Supreme Court in 2025 INSC 329, requiring the District execution petitions within a period of six months, without fail. which instructions of this Court to all the District and Sessions Judges to pending execution petition Directions have also been issued or long adjournments. 7. In these circumstances, the pending because the security has not been furnished by the respondent as -2- In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the operation of the Arbitral Award dated 30.6.2020 is stayed subject to furnishing of security by petitioner Subodh Parkash within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today. Application, thus, stands disposed off, accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner respondent has failed to furnish security in terms of order dated 24.02.2021 till the execution proceedings have been kept pending granting opportunit time and again to furnish the same. In case the respondent has not furnished the the award is required to be executed. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that security in terms of order, dated 24.02.2021, has already been he is not in a position to refer to any short order Heard. It needs to be noted that directions Supreme Court in Periyammal (Dead) and others 2025 INSC 329, requiring the District Judiciary to dispose of the pending execution petitions within a period of six months, without fail. which instructions, dated 03.04.2025, have been issued by the Registrar General of this Court to all the District and Sessions Judges to pending execution petitions within six months starting from 01.04.2025. irections have also been issued vide these instructions or long adjournments. In these circumstances, the execution petition cann pending because the security has not been furnished by the respondent as circumstances, the operation of the Arbitral Award dated 30.6.2020 is stayed subject to furnishing of security by petitioner Subodh Parkash within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today. Application, thus, stands disposed off, Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the furnish security in terms of order dated 24.02.2021, till the execution proceedings have been kept pending granting opportunities In case the respondent has not furnished the Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that has already been furnished, though sition to refer to any short order or document establishing the directions have been issued by the Periyammal (Dead) and others v. Rajamani and another, Judiciary to dispose of the pending execution petitions within a period of six months, without fail. Based upon been issued by the Registrar General of this Court to all the District and Sessions Judges to positively dispose of the within six months starting from 01.04.2025. vide these instructions not to give unnecessary execution petition cannot be kept pending because the security has not been furnished by the respondent as circumstances, the operation of the Arbitral Award dated 30.6.2020 is stayed subject to furnishing of security by petitioner Subodh Parkash within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today. Application, thus, stands disposed off, contends that the , ies In case the respondent has not furnished the Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that , though establishing the issued by the , Judiciary to dispose of the pending Based upon been issued by the Registrar General dispose of the within six months starting from 01.04.2025. not to give unnecessary ot be kept PUSHPINDER SAINI 2025.05.28 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5829-2024 directed. And in case it has been furnished, as the judgment execution will not survive. So either way, a decision must follow. Therefore, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Executing Court to finally decide or dispose of the exe the respondent-judgment debtor has furnished security in terms of order dated 24.02.2021 or not. May 26, 2025 ps -3- nd in case it has been furnished, as the judgment execution will not survive. So either way, a decision must follow. Therefore, etition is disposed of with a direction to the Executing Court to finally dispose of the execution petition taking into account judgment debtor has furnished security in terms of order dated 24.02.2021 or not. May 26, 2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable nd in case it has been furnished, as the judgment-debtor claims, the execution will not survive. So either way, a decision must follow. Therefore, etition is disposed of with a direction to the Executing Court to finally cution petition taking into account the fact whether judgment debtor has furnished security in terms of order dated (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No debtor claims, the execution will not survive. So either way, a decision must follow. Therefore, etition is disposed of with a direction to the Executing Court to finally whether judgment debtor has furnished security in terms of order dated TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) PUSHPINDER SAINI 2025.05.28 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document