Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 96495 (PNJ)

M/S S D TECHNICAL SERVICES P LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SANJEEV KUMAR BHARDWAJ v. DEEPAK SAHNI

FAO-COM/13/2025 · 2025-09-04

Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (4) M/s S.D.Technical Deepak Sahni CORAM : Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI 1. passed by Court, Gurugram for execution of award dated 06.09.2019, Commercial Court. 2. once the decree had Commercial Court, the execution of the same has to be done by the Court rather than by the Commercial Court, which f considered by the Commercial Court while the respondent from a 3. through the case file with his able assistance. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M/s S.D.Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Versus Deepak Sahni CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Mr. Satish Saini, Advocate for the HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present appeal, challenge is to the order Addl.District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Court, Gurugram wherein, the execution for execution of award dated 06.09.2019, Commercial Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that once the decree had already been passed prior to the form Commercial Court, the execution of the same has to be done by the Court rather than by the Commercial Court, which f considered by the Commercial Court while the respondent from a regular Court to a Commercial Court We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the case file with his able assistance. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-COM-13-2025 (O&M) FAO-COM-14-2025 Decided on : 04.09.2025 Services Pvt. Ltd. through its Director ……Appellant(s) Versus ……Respondent(s) HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS SURI , Advocate for the appellant (s). , J. (Oral) challenge is to the order dated 08.08.2025 Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial application filed by the respondent for execution of award dated 06.09.2019, has been transferred to the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that already been passed prior to the formation of the Commercial Court, the execution of the same has to be done by the regular Court rather than by the Commercial Court, which fact has not been considered by the Commercial Court while transferring the execution filed by to a Commercial Court. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the case file with his able assistance. 2025 (O&M) (s) ……Respondent(s) dated 08.08.2025 Exclusive Commercial application filed by the respondent has been transferred to the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that of the regular has not been transferring the execution filed by We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone SAILESH RANJAN 2025.09.09 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-COM-13-2025 (O&M) & FAO-COM-14-2025 -2- 4. Upon asking as to whether in case the suit filed by the respondent would have been pending till now, the same would have been transferred to the Commercial Court or not because of the matter being under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the suit would have been transferred to the Commercial Court, keeping in view the provisions of the Commercial Court. 5. Once it is the conceded fact that the issue persisting between the parties relates to the Commercial Court, the execution of order dated 06.09.2019, for which execution application was filed by respondent, comes within its jurisdiction. Concededly, the order dated 08.08.2025 passed, transferring the execution of order dated 06.09.2019 from regular Court to Commercial Court, cannot be treated as arbitrary or illegal. No proposition of law has been cited to contend that order impugned violates any process of law or settled proposition of law. No other ground(s) have been raised. 6. Keeping in view of the above, no ground is made out for interference. Resultantly, the present appeals stand dismissed. 7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 04.09.2025 (VIKAS SURI) Sailesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No SAILESH RANJAN 2025.09.09 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document