Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Arbitration | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Arbitration | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Directions to respondent No.2: (i) to decide the petitioner's application dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the first instance, before adjudicating the claim petition on merits; (ii) to supply copies of interim orders passed to the petitioner on a regular basis; and (iii) to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 should adjudicate the petitioner's application dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the first instance, before deciding the claim petition on merits. +2 more

Court's answer

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the application, Annexure P-5, filed by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Act at the first instance, before adjudicating the claim petition on merits.

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned is directed to supply copies of the interim orders passed to the petitioner on a regular basis.

Key takeaways

Respondent No.2 is requested to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. State of Punjab and others (CWP-15704-2024, High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 09.09.2025, Suvir Sehgal, J.). By a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought mandamus directing respondent No.2 to adjudicate its application dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the first instance before deciding the claim petition on merits; to follow the procedure laid down under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006; and to supply certified copies of zimini/interim orders. Although respondent No.3 contested the petition, its counsel raised no objection to both prayers. The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing respondent No.2 to decide the Section 16 application first, to supply copies of interim orders to the petitioner on a regular basis, and requesting that the proceedings be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months.

CWP-15704-2024

-1-

-IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(246-1)

CWP-15704-2024 Date of decision:- 09.09.2025

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present:- Mr. Rohit Khanna, Advocate,

Mr. Saurabh Gautam, Advocate and Mr. Siddarth Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kanav Singla, AAG, Punjab

Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3.

********

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. ( ORAL )

By way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has approached this Court inter-alia for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing to respondent No.2 to adjudicate application dated 14.12.2023, Annexure P-5, filed by the petitioner, under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) at the first instance before deciding the claim petition on merits. Another prayer has been made for directing respondent No.2 to follow the procedure as laid down under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and also to supply the certified copies of zimini/interim orders to the petitioner.

KAMAL SHARMA 2025.09.10 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

CWP-15704-2024 -2-

Although, after issuance notice of motion, writ petition is being contested and a response has been filed by respondent No.3, but counsel for respondent No.3 states that he does not have any objection in case both the prayers are acceded to.

In view thereof, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the application, Annexure P-5, filed by the petitioner, under Section 16 of the Act at the first instance before adjudicating the claim petition on merits. It is also directed that the authority concerned shall supply copies of the interim orders passed to the petitioner on a regular basis.

At this stage, counsel for respondent No.3 points out that the claim petition was filed in the year 2023 and is pending for the last three years. He requests that a direction be issued that the claim petition be determined expeditiously in a time bound manner.

There is a substance in the prayer made by the counsel for respondent No.3.

Respondent No.2 is requested to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months.

(SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE

09.09.2025

Kamal

Whether Speaking/Reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

KAMAL SHARMA 2025.09.10 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.