Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State Road And Bridges ... vs M/S Gawar Construction Ltd And Anr on 23 March, 2026
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
CR-2630-2026 (O&M) -1-
122-A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
CR-2630-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.03.2026
Haryana State Road & Bridges Development Corporation Limited
.... Petitioner
Versus
M/s Gawar Constructions Ltd. and another
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Udit Garg, Addl. AG, Haryana.
for the petitioner/State.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula in ARB-11-2021 without considering the fact that the objections under Sections 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are pending since 2021.
2. Mr. Udit Garg, learned Addl. AG, Haryana appearing on behalf of the petitioners/State submitted that by way of the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 while deciding the application under Section 36 of the Act, learned Court has stayed the operation of the impugned award dated 26.12.2020, subject to depositing of the award amount inclusive of interest within a period of four weeks and upon depositing the said amount, the respondents are at liberty to seek the release of 50% amount on furnishing adequate security in the shape of bank guarantee. He further submitted that the aforesaid order is harsh in nature and objections under Section 34 of the BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.03.25 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CR-2630-2026 (O&M) -2- Act are still pending from the year 2021 which is almost more than five years. He prayed that appropriate direction may be issued to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula to decide the objections within a stipulated time frame.
3. At this stage, Ms. Shikha Tandon, Advocate with Ms. Sehjal Sethi, Advocate has caused appearance on behalf of the respondents.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality or perversity can be found in the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula since the application has been filed under Section 36(2) & (3) of the Act, which is for the enforcement of the award and the same is in the nature of a money decree. The Court hearing the objections under Section 34 of the Act and the application under Section 36(2)&(3) of the Act is rather under an obligation to secure the amount since the award is always in the nature of a money decree.
5. At this stage, Mr. Udit Garg, Addl. AG, Haryana has stated that the aforesaid period of four weeks may be extended till the end of April since the petitioner is a Government Organization and because of the end of the financial year, the aforesaid amount could not be deposited.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents states that she has got no objection with regard to the aforesaid limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner/State seeking extension of time to deposit the amount in terms of the impugned order.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. The impugned order dated 12.02.2026 stands modified to the limited extent that the time granted to the petitioner to deposit the award amount, inclusive of BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.03.25 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CR-2630-2026 (O&M) -3- interest, which was fixed at four weeks, is hereby extended up to 27.04.2026 and the impugned order stands modified accordingly.
8. As regards the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner/State that a time frame be fixed for deciding the objections under Section 34 of the Act, which have been pending since 2021 (over five years), this Court is of the considered view that no such time frame can be fixed due to the heavy pendency of cases before the learned Courts below. Nevertheless, this Court requests learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, to decide the said objections under Section 34 of the Act as expeditiously as possible.
23.03.2026 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.03.25 14:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh