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

CR-7512-2025 Date of Decision: 27.10.2025 Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioner Versus Suzlon Energy Ltd. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J . (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking setting aside the order dated 05.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby the petitioner’s execution petition/application has been ‘disposed off’ without satisfying the award/decree dated 18.05.2017 and also seeking direction for restoration of execution petition to its original number and for release of bank gurantees so deposited before the Executing Court to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by way of the impugned order (Annexure P-1), the learned Executing Court has disposed of the execution application which is under challenge in the present case. He further submitted that an award was passed by the learned Arbitrator in favour of the petitioner, who is the decree holder. Thereafter, the petitioner-Company had filed an execution application before learned Executing Court. He submitted that the total principal amount in the award was about (cid:0) 3.3 crores which has already been paid to the petitioner by the judgment debtor. However, there was also a provision for grant of interest in the award, regarding which, an execution application was filed and was pending. He further submitted that as per the claim pertaining to the interest component, the due amount in favour of the petitioner was about (cid:0) 5 crores and by way of the impugned order, the execution application has been disposed of on the basis of the fact that on the direction issued by the learned Executing Court, the judgment debtor has furnished a bank guarantee of (cid:0) 3.75 crores although it was also directed that the bank guarantee shall not be released to the decree holders.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the award was assailed by the respondent by filing objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) which was dismissed and thereafter, the respondent had filed an appeal before this Court which is pending adjudication and there is no interim order passed in the appeal. He further submitted that the learned Executing Court ought to have calculated the interest component and after determining the same, the adequate bank guarantees ought to have been furnished and since it is falling short of the claim which is made by the decree holder in the execution application, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He submitted that even otherwise also in fact the Executing Court ought to have directed the release of the amount to the petitioner instead of asking for the bank guarantee.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The petitioner is a decree holder. An appeal under Section 37 of the Act is pending before this Court as per learned counsel for the petitioner in which there is no interim order. The principal amount of the award as per learned counsel for the petitioner was about (cid:0) 3.3 Crores which already stands paid to the petitioner. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had claimed interest component to the tune of (cid:0) 5 crores by filing an execution application before the Executing Court. Learned Executing Court by way of the impugned order had directed the judgment debtor to deposit an amount of (cid:0) 3.75 crores by way of FDR of a Nationalized Bank or by way of a bank guarantee. Thereafter, the respondent-judgment debtor furnished bank guarantees to the tune of (cid:0) 3.75 crores. The operative portion of the order passed by the learned Executing Court is repr