Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P/14/2026 of PARTAP SINGH VERMA Vs STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER on 22 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.14 of 2026 Date of Decision: 22.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Partap Singh Verma …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No.14 of 2026 Date of Decision: 22.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Partap Singh Verma
…….Petitioners
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
… Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioners: Mr. T.S. Bhogal & Ms. Swati Verma, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
While placing on record communication dated 21.09.2026 issued under the signatures of Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Seraj at Janjehli, enclosing therewith copy of order dated 03.09.2026 passed by this Court in OMP No. 236/2026 in CARBC No. 28/2026, whereby order dated 04.05.2026, thereby staying the operation of impugned award, came to be made absolute, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that entire award amount to the tune of Rs. 1,58,51,050/- stands deposited in the Registry of this Court.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
3. Having carefully perused aforesaid document, which is taken on record, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned Additional Advocate General. Since award otherwise sought to be executed in the instant proceedings has already been stayed subject to deposit of award amount, coupled with the fact that aforesaid entire award amount has been deposited, there appears to be no justification to keep present petition alive and as such, same is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file afresh at appropriate stage, if required. Needless to say, petitioner/judgment debtor is always at liberty to file application in arbitration case, seeking therein direction to the respondents qua shortfall, if any, in deposit of award amount.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 22, 2026 (sunil)