Photon Sunbeam Private Limited Through Its Director Ajay Sood v. State Of Punjab And Others

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (104) Date of decision:- 22.07.2025 Photon Sunbeam Private Limited

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Ajiteshwar Singh, Advocate, with Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Darika Sikka, Advocate for respondent No.6.

...

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral) CM-10264-CWP-2025 1.

Pursuant to previous order passed by this Court, respondent No.6 has filed an application annexing therewith an affidavit of Naveen Singh Thakur, Director of Photon Suryodaya Pvt. Ltd.

2.

Affidavit along with Annexures is taken on record. 3.

Application is disposed of.

-24.

State counsel has filed reply by way of short affidavit of Showkat Ahmad Parray, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record. He has invited the attention of this Court to paras No.5 and 6 of the reply, which are reproduced hereunder:- "5.

That, on 15-07-2025, M/s. Fortune Metal Limited, Talwara Road, Mandi Gobindgarh has deposited the whole sale amount Rs.2.06 Crore in the account mentioned in para No.4 above.

6.

That details of the amount pending for the payment by the petitioner was submitted before this Hon'ble Court vide affidavit dated 25.04.2025 by the answering respondent and as per the annexure R-2 of the affidavit Rs.7,02,88,687/- (Seven crore two lac eighty eight thousand six hundred eighty seven) alongwith interest amount will have to be paid by the company after calculating the same as per clause 4.3 of the lease deed executed between the company and the farmers, but Rs.2.06 Crore have been generated after selling the equipments of the company as detailed in para 3 supra. Report is submitted for the kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court please."

5.

In view of above development, which has taken during pendency of the writ petition, as are evident from the affidavits filed by the State as well as respondent No.6, counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous.

-36.

As per affidavit filed by respondent No.2, an amount of Rs.7,02,88,687/- along with interest, is due from respondent No.6, as per lease deeds executed between the company and the farmers, but an amount of Rs.2.06 crores only has been recovered.

7.

Be that as it may, after disbursing the amount of Rs.2.06 crores to the farmers as per their entitlement, official respondents will proceed in accordance with law to recover the balance amount. 8.

Petition is disposed of.

(SUVIR SEHGAL) 22.07.2025 JUDGE Pardeep Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes/No