M/S MEGA FURNITURE GALLERY vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — CWP/24253/2025
Case under Constitution of India Section 14 19 21. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 24th March 2026.
CNR: PHHC011312392025
e-Filing Number
13-08-2025
Filing Number
CWP/51176/2025
Filing Date
18-Aug-2025
Registration No
CWP/24253/2025
Registration Date
19-Aug-2025
Judge
Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Coram
Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Bench Type
Single
Category
63.66 - CASE RLT TO REL OF PAY OF WRK DON UND ORD GOVT FUN ( 759 )
Sub-Category
( 944 )
Judicial Branch
WRITS -I BRANCH
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISPOSED OF
Last updated 11-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.M/S MEGA FURNITURE GALLERY
Adv. S.S. BEHL
-
2.STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
-
2.STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
-
3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER
-
4.THE CHIEF ENGINEER
-
5.EXECUTIVE ENGUNEER
-
6.SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
-
7.THE SUPRINTENDING ENGINEER
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF
Summary of CWP-24253-2025 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside the Executive Engineer's rejection of M/S Mega Furniture Gallery's payment claim for Rs. 46.65 lakhs spent on repair/renovation work at Kothi No. 16, Chandigarh. The Court found that government authorities had conceded the work was completed and sought post-facto approval through multiple letters (dated 16.06.2023 and 30.06.2023), and therefore the petitioner cannot be denied payment based solely on the absence of a formal work order, provided verification confirms the work was actually performed. The respondent was directed to process payment within three months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. CWP/24253/2025
Summary of CWP-24253-2025 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside the Executive Engineer's rejection of M/S Mega Furniture Gallery's payment claim for Rs. 46.65 lakhs spent on repair/renovation work at Kothi No. 16, Chandigarh. The Court found that government authorities had conceded the work was completed and sought post-facto approval through multiple letters (dated 16.06.2023 and 30.06.2023), and therefore the petitioner cannot be denied payment based solely on the absence of a formal work order, provided verification confirms the work was actually performed. The respondent was directed to process payment within three months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts