##PAGE1##

2025:HHC:42876

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Execution Petition No.7 of 2024

Date of Decision: 30.12.2025

__________________________________________________________________

M/s Tenzin Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. ……...Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and Another …....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharmao, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.

T.S. Bhogal, Ms. Swati Verma and Ms.

Srishti Verma, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. S.D. Vasudeva and Ms. Ayushi Negi,

Deputy Advocate General, for the

o respondents-State.

__________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant execution petition filed under Order

XXI Rule 11 CPC read with Section 36 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996, prayer has been made on behalf of

petitioner (for short, ‘Decree Holder’) for execution and

implementation of the Award dated 29.05.2023 passed by the

learned Arbitrator in arbitration proceedings titled as M/s Tenzin

Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of H.P. and Another (available at

page No.8 of the paper-book).

2. Though, in terms of order dated 12.11.2024, whereby

execution and implementation of the Award was stayed, subject to

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 06:22:22 :::CIS

2025:HHC:42876

2

deposit of Award amount, respondents (for short, ‘Judgment

Debtor’) have deposited the Award amount in the RegistPry of this

Court along with up-to-date interest, but fact remains that despite

repeated opportunities, no objections have been filed till date. It is

also pertinent to take note of the fact that commercial arbitration

case bearing CARBC No.72 of 2025o, having been filed by the

Judgment Debtor, laying therein challenge to the Award dated

29.05.2023, otherwise sought to be executed in the instant

proceedings, stands dismuissed by this Court vide judgment dated

10.12.2025. In theo afore background, prayer has been made on

behalf of DeCcree Holder to release the Award amount lying

deposited with the Registry of this Court.

3. Mr. J.S. Bhogal, learned Senior Counsel representing

tghe Decree Holder states that since Award sought to be executed

ihas been upheld, coupled with the fact that till date, no appeal has

been filed by the Judgment Debtor in the superior Court of law,

instant execution petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, learned Deputy Advocate General,

while fairly admitting the factum with regard to dismissal of the

appeal preferred by the Judgment Debtor states that since

limitation period to file appeal is yet to expire, prayer made on

behalf of Decree Holder for release of Award amount may not be

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 06:22:22 :::CIS

2025:HHC:42876

3

accepted. He submitted that in the event of appeal being allowed, it

may be difficult for Judgment Debtor to recover the amounPt.

5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties

and perused material available on record, this Court finds that

contract was awarded in favour of the Decre e Holder on 05.10.2016

and thereafter on account of certain disputes, matter was referred

to arbitration on 05.03.2022. On account of pendency of dispute, as

detailed hereinabove, amount, qua which Decree Holder has been

otherwise held entitled buy the learned Arbitrator, has not been paid

to the Decree Holdeor for more than four to five years.

6. No doubt, Judgment Debtor has the remedy of filing

appeal against the judgment dated 10.12.2025 passed by this

Court, thereby dismissing the CARBC No.72 of 2025 filed by the

Jgudgment Debtor, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that

iDecree Holder is in the business of construction and as such, may

be requiring money for other projects. In case amount, which is

otherwise lying deposited with the Registry of this Court is ordered

to be released in favour of the Decree Holder, coupled with the fact

that petitioner has been held entitled to such amount by learned

Arbitrator, Award whereof has been further upheld by this