Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8376 (HP)

M/S S.K.M. ENTERPRISES v. STATE OF HP AND ANR

CMPMO/526/2025 · 2026-05-19

Virender Singh

Civil Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:HHC:18155 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. : 526 of 2025 Decided on : 19.05.2026 M/s S.K.M. Enterprises …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional A.Gs., with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy A.G. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) In view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 14630 of 2025, titled as Harshbir Singh Pannu and Anr. Versus Jaswinder Singh, decided on 08.12.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought permission to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to approach the learned Arbitrator, by moving the application to recall the order, in view of the decision in Harshbir Singh Pannu’s case (supra). Relevant portion of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:18155 “(VII) There is a clear distinction between a procedural review and a review on merits. The arbitral tribunal possesses the inherent procedural power to recall an order terminating the proceedings as such power is merely to correct an error apparent on the face of the record or to address a material fact that was overlooked. It does not tantamount to revisiting the findings of law or re-appreciating the substantive issues already decided. (VIII) Where an arbitral tribunal passes an order for terminating the proceedings under the Act, 1996, the appropriate remedy available to the parties would be to first file an application for recall of such order before the arbitral tribunal itself. The arbitral tribunal would then in turn be required to examine whether the order does or does not deserve to be recalled.” 3. In view of the above, leave and liberty as aforementioned is granted. Petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending applications, if any. (Virender Singh) 19th May, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)