M/S Surat Ram Bakshi Ram v. Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council And Another

LPA-278-2025 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH LPA-278-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.02.2025 M/s Surat Ram Bakshi Ram ...Appellant Vs.

Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Present:

Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for the appellant.

*** ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL , J.(Oral) The appellant has challenged the order dated 28.11.2024 whereby he has been directed to deposit the amount awarded by the Single Bench. 2.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he had preferred the writ petition challenging the award and the matter is pending adjudication before the Single Bench and the interim order directing the petitioner to pay the entire amount of the award has put him to immense hardship. 3.

Heard.

4.

It is manifest that the interim order had been passed by the Single Bench as a prayer for adjournment had been moved on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner which had been opposed by the counsel for respondent No.2, stating that adjournments had been sought on four previous occasions. It was also submitted therein that the petitioner is disposing of its assets and if, the awarded amount is not secured, grave prejudice would be caused to respondent No.2-M/s North Agro VANITA 2025.02.11 05:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment

LPA-278-2025 (O&M) Industries Pvt.Ltd. It was after considering these submissions that the impugned order was passed on 28.11.2024.

5.

We are of the considered view that there is no manifest illegality in the impugned order which is an interim order passed by the Single Bench as the petitioner has only been asked to deposit the awarded amount, as request for an adjournment had been sought on several occasions by the counsel for the petitioner after an interim order in its favour had been passed. 6.

In the event of the petitioner being aggrieved by an interim order passed by the Single Bench on the ground that his counsel could not appear and argue, he ought to have filed an application for modification thereof, which he has not done and instead has chosen to prefer the present LPA. 7.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioner is not disposing of any of its assets and there is no material on record indicating its intention to do so as well. He submits that he undertakes that the counsel for the petitioner will not seek any unnecessary adjournments before the Single Bench and he may be granted liberty to prefer application for modification of the impugned order.

8.

We deem it appropriate to dispose of the LPA with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Single Bench for modification of the interim order. 9.

The LPA stands disposed of accordingly.

(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL ) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 10.02.2025 vanita Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes No Whether Reportable :

Yes No VANITA 2025.02.11 05:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment