Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Kang Gursharan Singh 2014.07.01 09:42 Civil Writ Petition No.7226 of 2014 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : JUNE30 2014 M/s Radhey Godowns ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI PRESENT: Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Alok Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1.
Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr.Karan Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3..KAUL,, CJ.
(Oral) SANJAY KISHAN KAUL CM Nos.6794 and 7238, of 2014 Allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM Nos.6795, 7239 and 7303, of 2014 Leave is granted to place on record written statements of respondent Nos.3, 1 and 2, respectively, and the applications are allowed.
CWP7226of 2014 Before proceeding to hear the matter, we put a query to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as to whether he Civil Writ Petition No.7226 of 2014 (O&M) 2 would like to file any replication.
He states that no replication is required to be filed, but the only factual controveRs.is qua the possession of the godown in question as, according to him, there were stocks in the godown and locks put by the Punjab Grain Procurement Corporation Limited (for short 'PUNGRAIN').Learned counsel for Food Corporation of India states that they have lifted the entire stock and have nothing to do with the godown in question nor are their locks in operation.
Learned counsel for PUNGRAIN, on instructions, states that possession is already delivered to the petitioner and no stocks of their are in the godown.
Thus, the respondents submit that if, at all, there are any locks on the godown, the petitioner is free to break the same and they claim no right either in the godown or anything which may be lying therein.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
It is not in dispute that the agreement inter se the parties is governed by an arbitration clause and, thus, whatever disputes have arisen, must go to arbitration.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that even if the aforesaid position exists, there cannot be any blacklisting of the petitioner as neither there is any provision for blacklisting nor any occasion for doing the same.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the following agreed order is passed:- i) the parties will seek recouRs.to arbitration in Civil Writ Petition No.7226 of 2014 (O&M) 3 terms of the arbitration clause; ii) the black listing order will not operate against the petitioner and the parties will be bound by the ultimate result of the award to be rendered or any further challenge that might come.
The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.
( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE June 30, 2014 ( AJAY TEWARI ) Kang JUDGE