Shivalik Engineering Traders v. State Of Punjab & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-9675-2014(O&M) Date of Decision: 16.04.2026 SHIVALIK ENGINEERING TRADERS ....Petitioner vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:

Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 18.05.2012 (Annexure P-9) whereby respondent has rejected its claim to the extent of Rs. 56,926/-.

2.

The petitioner has carried out work for respondent. The petitioner is claiming that respondent has wrongly withheld its payment to the tune of Rs. 56,926/-.

3.

This is second round of litigation. On the earlier occasion, the petitioner preferred CWP No. 2619 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.02.2012 with a direction to respondent pass a speaking order on the petitioner's representation. The respondent by impugned order PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2026.04.16 05:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9675-2014
 has conceded petitioner's claim to the tune of Rs. 39,000/-, however, rejected the remaining.

4.

On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to dispute that there is arbitration clause in the agreement and it is purely a contractual dispute.

5.

The liability is disputed by respondents. It is purely a contractual dispute and there is arbitration clause in the agreement, thus, there is no occasion to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6.

In the backdrop, the petition stands disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to avail remedies as permissible by law. 7.

Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 16.04.2026 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2026.04.16 05:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document