Punjab & Haryana HC seeks explanation from judge for wrongly attributing district court order to High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently sought an explanation from an additional district judge for mistakenly writing that the High Court had stayed proceedings in an application moved by Punjab State Warehousing Corporation for execution of an arbitration award [Hardev Singh and Ors v Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and Anr]

The Court was informed that the order staying the operation of the award was actually passed by an additional district judge in Chandigarh who is hearing a challenge against the award.

Justice Lapita Banerji called it a serious issue and sought a report from the district judge of Muktsar Sahib.

"Let a status report be called from the learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, explaining the anomaly that has crept into the order dated August 19, 2026, passed in EXE-86-2024. It is also to be explained how despite recording that the presence of the decree holder is awaited the appearance of the learned counsel for the decree holder is recorded and how after recording that the JDs No. 1 to 7 are proceeded against “ex parte”, the learned ADJ recorded the presence of the learned counsel for JDs No.3 to 6," the Court said.

The matter pertains to a domestic arbitration award won by Punjab State Warehousing Corporation against an industrial unit over the short supply of rice in return for the paddy entrusted to it.

In the execution proceedings filed by the Corporation, the additional district judge at Muktsar Sahab on March 27 issued warrants of attachment of property of judgment debtors in the proceedings. The same was challenged by the judgment debtors before the High Court.

During a hearing of the revision petition on September 16, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation's Standing Counsel Abhilaksh Gaind told the Court that the additional district judge on August 19 stayed the execution proceedings after relying upon a High Court stay order that didn't exist.

However, senior counsel representing the judgment debtors submitted that the additional district judge had only wrongly recorded that the High Court had passed the stay order when the stay order was in fact passed by a Chandigarh district court judge while hearing their objection petition.

Therefore, the Court proceeded to seek an explanation from the judge.

Senior Advocate Vijay Kumar Jindal with Advocates Ajay Pal Singh, Abhishek Shukla and Vijayveer represented the petitioners.

Standing Counsel Abhilaksh Gaind with Advocates Rakesh Roy and Priya Jarial represented the respondents.

[Read Order]