CR-4636-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT M/s Ashok Kumar Contractor State of Punjab and another CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Somesh Arora, Additional A.G., Punjab. LAPITA BANERJI Learned submits that vide order dated December 8, 2025 District Judge, Chandigarh directed the respondents provide security for the shape of a stipulated for the said deposit was 15 days from the date of the order Subject to such security the impugned award was to remain 2. He submits that the entirety of the said amount was not paid within the stipulated time. Thereafter, February 13, 2026, the learned Additional District Judge rejected the decree holders/petitioner’s security amount to the decree holder. He submits that learned Additional District Judge misdirected himself since there was no 2026 (O&M) Sr. No. 111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of Decision : M/s Ashok Kumar Contractor Versus State of Punjab and another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Somesh Arora, Additional A.G., Punjab. *** LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that vide order dated December 8, 2025 District Judge, Chandigarh directed the respondents provide security for the entire awarded amount with upto date inter a bank guarantee or fixed deposit receipts (FDRs). The time stipulated for the said deposit was 15 days from the date of the order Subject to such security deposit being made the impugned award was to remain stayed. He submits that the entirety of the said amount was not paid the stipulated time. Thereafter, vide February 13, 2026, the learned Additional District Judge rejected the ers/petitioner’s prayer for han security amount to the decree holder. He submits that learned Additional District Judge misdirected himself since there was no IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4636-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision :13.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Somesh Arora, Additional A.G., Punjab. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that vide order dated December 8, 2025, the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh directed the respondents-judgment debtors to amount with upto date interest in bank guarantee or fixed deposit receipts (FDRs). The time stipulated for the said deposit was 15 days from the date of the order. deposit being made, the execution/operation of He submits that the entirety of the said amount was not paid vide the impugned order dated February 13, 2026, the learned Additional District Judge rejected the for handing over the deposited security amount to the decree holder. He submits that in doing so, the learned Additional District Judge misdirected himself since there was no VANDANA 2026.07.17 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4636-2026 (O&M) extension of time for deposit amount. 3. Issue n 4. Mr. on behalf of the respondents the entirety of the been deposited stayed till the objection petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Court concerned, the entire objective of filing the objection petition will be frustrated. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. It is undisputed that awarded amount the form of security deposit before the Executing Court. 7. Under Section before whom an application under Section 34 is pending order of stay of operation of the arbitral award subject to such conditions as it may deem fit for grant of stay. The learned Additional District Judge imposed the aforesaid condition stay of the award and subsequently extended it. 8. Therefore, once the conditions have been fulfilled judgment debtor that the awarded holder as it would lead to multiplicity of judicial proceedings event the objection petition filed by 2026 (O&M) extension of time for depositing the balance of the awarded/security Issue notice. Mr. Somesh Arora, Additional A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-judgment debtors and submits that since the entirety of the amount directed by the learned E been deposited, albeit belatedly, unless the exe stayed till the objection petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short,’ the 1996 Act’) Court concerned, the entire objective of filing the objection petition will be frustrated. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is undisputed that awarded amount form of security deposit before the Executing Court. Under Sections 36(2) and 36 (3) of the 1996 Act, the before whom an application under Section 34 is pending order of stay of operation of the arbitral award subject to such conditions as it may deem fit for grant of stay. The learned Additional District Judge imposed the aforesaid condition stay of the award and subsequently extended it. Therefore, once the conditions have been fulfilled judgment debtor, the learned Additional District Judge was of the view awarded amount should not be handed over to the award/decree holder as it would lead to multiplicity of judicial proceedings event the objection petition filed by the judgment debtor was allowed. the balance of the awarded/security , Additional A.G., Punjab accepts notice judgment debtors and submits that since amount directed by the learned Executing Court has the execution of the award is stayed till the objection petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration (for short,’ the 1996 Act’) is decided by the Court concerned, the entire objective of filing the objection petition will This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and It is undisputed that awarded amount has been deposited in form of security deposit before the Executing Court. 2) and 36 (3) of the 1996 Act, the Court before whom an application under Section 34 is pending, may grant an order of stay of operation of the arbitral award subject to imposition of such conditions as it may deem fit for grant of stay. The learned Additional District Judge imposed the aforesaid conditions for grant of stay of the award and subsequently extended it. Therefore, once the conditions have been fulfilled by the , the learned Additional District Judge was of the view amount should not be handed over to the award/decree holder as it would lead to multiplicity of judicial proceedings, in the the judgment debtor was allowed. VANDANA 2026.07.17 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4636-2026 (O&M) 9. This Court finds no perversity o order dated February 13, 2026. 10. Accordingly, the instant Civil Revision being 2026 is dismissed. 11. Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. July 13, 2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : 2026 (O&M) This Court finds no perversity o order dated February 13, 2026. Accordingly, the instant Civil Revision being dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 6 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No This Court finds no perversity or infirmity in the impugned Accordingly, the instant Civil Revision being CR-4636 of owever, there will be no order as to costs. Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No VANDANA 2026.07.17 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document