The Punjab and Haryana High Court has formally requested an explanation from an additional district judge concerning a significant misattribution of an order. The confusion arose when it was incorrectly documented that the High Court had stayed proceedings related to an arbitration award sought for execution by the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation. In reality, the stay order originated from a district court in Chandigarh, tasked with addressing objections to the arbitration award.
Case Background
In the case of Hardev Singh and Ors v Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and Anr, Justice Lapita Banerji expressed serious concern over the error and asked for a detailed report from the district judge of Muktsar Sahib. Justice Banerji emphasized the need to address the discrepancies found in an order dated August 19, 2026, related to case number EXE-86-2024.
Justice Banerji stated, “A status report is requested from the learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, to clarify the inconsistencies present in the order. Specifically, the report should explain the recording of the decree holder’s presence despite noting their awaited appearance, and the notation of ex parte proceedings against judgment debtors No. 1 to 7 while still recording counsel appearances for judgment debtors No. 3 to 6.”
Arbitration Dispute
The dispute centers on a domestic arbitration award granted to the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation against an industrial entity accused of failing to supply the agreed quantity of rice for paddy received. The Corporation initiated execution proceedings, resulting in the issuance of warrants for property attachment against the judgment debtors by the additional district judge at Muktsar Sahib on March 27.
Upon appeal, the judgment debtors challenged the execution process in the High Court. During the revision petition hearing on September 16, Abhilaksh Gaind, the Standing Counsel for the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, informed the High Court that the additional district judge erroneously cited a non-existent High Court stay order to halt the execution proceedings.
More Read
Court’s Response
Senior counsel for the judgment debtors clarified that the additional district judge mistakenly attributed the stay order to the High Court. In reality, the order was issued by a district court judge in Chandigarh during the hearing of their objection petition. Consequently, the High Court sought clarification from the additional district judge to understand the circumstances leading to this error.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Vijay Kumar Jindal and Advocates Ajay Pal Singh, Abhishek Shukla, and Vijayveer. The respondents were represented by Standing Counsel Abhilaksh Gaind and Advocates Rakesh Roy and Priya Jarial.
[Read Order]
