Disposed¶14

Jai Bhushan Malik v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2025CR/1892/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Executing Court to decide Execution Application no.430 of 2024 expeditiously, preferably within four months of receiving a certified copy of the order. ¶14

Jai Bhushan Malik Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the Executing Court to decide Execution Application no.430 of 2024 expeditiously, preferably within four months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the Executing Court should be directed to decide Execution Application no.430 of 2024 (enforcement of the arbitration award dated 20.07.2024) in a time-bound manner.

¶9

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the Executing Court to decide the pending execution application bearing no.430 of 2024 expeditiously, preferably within four months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

¶14

Key takeaways

Service of notice on the respondents was done away with, as no prejudice would be caused to them, keeping in view the nature of directions being issued.obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CR-1892-2025 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh) — Jai Bhushan Malik, a registered contractor under the MSMED Act, 2006 (Agreement No. 51 of 2015-16 for providing and layering of lateral sewer and main/outfall sewer, manholes, house connections and road works at Barnala Town, District Barnala), obtained an arbitration award dated 20.07.2024 (Annexure P-1). His Execution Application no.430 of 2024, titled Jai Bhushan Malik v. Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, instituted on 13.09.2024, lay undecided before the Executing Court for over six months, with no stay by any court of law. Relying on the Supreme Court's directions in Periyammal (Dead) and others v. Rajamani and another, 2025 INSC 329 (District Judiciary to dispose of pending execution petitions within six months) and the Registrar General's instructions dated 03.04.2025, the Court (Tribhuvan Dahiya, J.) disposed of the petition, directing the Executing Court to decide the execution application expeditiously, preferably within four months of receiving a certified copy of the order; notice on the respondents was dispensed with as no prejudice would be caused (order dated 20.05.2025).

¶1

112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ A B AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CR-1892-2025 Date of Decisio n :20.05.2025

Jai Bhushan M a lik

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ….Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate fo r the petitioner.

¶8

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

¶9

Th e petition has been filed, seeki n g a direction to the Executin g Court to decide Execution Application no.430 o f 2024 titled Jai Bhushan Mali k v. Punjab Wat e r Supply and Sewerage Board ; instituted on 13.09.2024, in a time bound ma n ner.

¶10

Le a rned counsel contends that the petitioner is a registere d contractor unde r the MSMED Act, 2006, and h as been allotted a contract fo r Providing and layering of lateral sewer & main/outfall sewer includin g construction of m anholes, making house conne c tions and construction of roads , and all other w o rks contingent thereto at Barn a la Town, District Barnala, vid e agreement No. 5 1 of 2015-16. Timely payme n ts were not made to him an d disputes arose b etween the parties, leading to a rbitral proceedings which wer e concluded by p a ssing of award dated 20.07.202 4 , Annexure P-1. The petitione r has filed afore m entioned execution applicatio n for enforcement of the award , against which t h ere is no stay by any court o f law. Despite the matter bein g pending with th e Executing Court for more tha n six months, it has not been

¶11

PUSHPINDER SAINI 2025.05.28 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶12

CR-1892-2025 -2-

¶13

finally decided. He has relied upon directions issued by the Supreme Court i n Periyammal ( D ead) and others v. Rajamani and another, 2025 INSC 329 , requiring the D istrict Judiciary to dispose of t he pending execution petition s within a perio d of six months, without fail. B ased upon which instructions , dated 03.04.2025, have been issued by the Reg i strar General of this Court to al l the District and Sessions Judges to positively d ispose of the pending executio n petitions within six months starting from 01.04.2025. Directions have also bee n issued vide thes e instructions not to give unnec e ssary or long adjournments. 3. Ke e ping in view the nature of dir e ctions being issued, service o f notice on the r e spondent has been done awa y with, as no prejudice will b e caused to them.

¶14

In the light of facts aforementioned and the directions issued i n Periyammal ca s e ( supra ) , it is deemed appro p riate to dispose of the petitio n with a direction to the Executing Court to decide the pending executio n application be a ring no.430 of 2024 expedit i ously, preferably within fou r months of recei v ing a certified copy of the orde r .

¶15

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) May 20, 2025 JUDGE ps

¶16

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶17

PUSHPINDER SAINI 2025.05.28 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jai Bhushan Malik v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Bhushan Malik v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Mangla Vs Prr Warehousing Private Limited

Ashok Kumar Garg Vs State of Haryana and Others

Raj Kumar etc. Vs State of Hy.Etc.

Jai Bhushan Malik Vs Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Divison No. 2 Patiala through Its Executive Engineer

Dr Ashok Kumar Vs Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and Others

Suman Kumari Vs State of Haryana and Others