MS MAHADEV FRUIT AND VEGETABLE COMPANY vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CWP/14421/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 11-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010779462026

e-Filing Number

05-05-2026

Filing Number

CWP/28166/2026

Filing Date

06-May-2026

Registration No

CWP/14421/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Vikas Suri , Mr. Justice Suvir Sehgal

Coram

Mr. Justice Vikas Suri , Mr. Justice Suvir Sehgal

Category

8.4 - HUID HARYANA((HOUSING URBAN INDL. DEVELOPMENT) ( 405 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MS MAHADEV FRUIT AND VEGETABLE COMPANY

    Adv. RAVINDER MALIK

  2. 2.State of Haryana AND OTHERS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.State of Haryana AND OTHERS

  3. 3.Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board

  4. 4.Market Committee Panipat

  5. 5.The Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Vikas Suri,mr. Justice Suvir SehgalView PDF

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and referred the dispute to independent arbitration. The petitioner won a commercial property auction but failed to deposit the balance 75% within 120 days, claiming bank mortgage delays prevented loan access. Though auction terms required government official arbitration, the court held such appointments violate the Supreme Court's Perkins Eastman principle and appointed retired IAS officer T.P.S. Phoolka as sole independent arbitrator to adjudicate all claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/14421/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and referred the dispute to independent arbitration. The petitioner won a commercial property auction but failed to deposit the balance 75% within 120 days, claiming bank mortgage delays prevented loan access. Though auction terms required government official arbitration, the court held such appointments violate the Supreme Court's Perkins Eastman principle and appointed retired IAS officer T.P.S. Phoolka as sole independent arbitrator to adjudicate all claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case