IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

CR-1578-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and another .... Petitioner Versus Gawar Construction Private Limited ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J . (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 17.01.2026 (Annexure P- 1) whereby learned Executing Court is proceeding to execute the decree in favour of the respondent-decree holder.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are the judgment debtors and had filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) before learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula. The said objections were dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for restoration of the aforesaid objections, in which notice has been issued. He further submitted that since the notice in the restoration application is pending, the Executing Court should not proceed with the execution of the decree.

3. At this stage, Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate has caused appearance on behalf of the respondents and submitted that even at the time of the pendency of objections under Section 34 of the Act, no stay was granted by the Executing Court and now even the said objections stand dismissed, the mere pendency of the restoration application does not constitute a ground for staying the execution proceedings, particularly in view of the statutory mandate under Section 36(2) of the Act (which provides that mere filing of an application under Section 34 shall not be itself render the award unenforceable) as well as the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Periyammal (Dead) and others Versus V. Rajamani and another”, 2025 SCC Online SC 507

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

5. The only contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Act have been dismissed and a restoration application has been filed in respect thereof in which notice of motion has been issued, the Executing Court should refrain from proceeding further. However, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that even during the pendency of the said objections under Section 34 of the Act, no stay was granted by learned Court. Section 36(2) of the Act provides that unless a stay is granted, the award shall be enforceable as a decree.

6. In the present case, not only was there no stay during the pendency of the objections under Section 34 of the Act, but the said objections also stand dismissed. Although notice has been issued in restoration application, but the fact remains that the objections stand dismissed as on date and no stay has been granted by any Court in this regard. Therefore, no such direction can be issued to the Executing Court to refrain from proceeding with the execution of the decree especially in view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Periyammal (Dead) and others case (Supra) as well as provisions of Section 36(2) of the Act.

7. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

18.02.2026 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)

Bhumika JUDGE