M/S DEEPAK RICE AND GENERAL MILL vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — ARB/734/2025

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 11. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 11-Dec-2025

CNR: PHHC011971472025

e-Filing Number

02-12-2025

Filing Number

ARB/76936/2025

Filing Date

03-Dec-2025

Registration No

ARB/734/2025

Registration Date

03-Dec-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

Coram

Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

Bench Type

Single

Category

69.4 - ARBITRATION U/S 11 (LESS THAN 5 CRORE) ( 938 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 11

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S DEEPAK RICE AND GENERAL MILL

    Adv. RENU BALA KAMBOJ

  2. 2.Ms Deepak Rice and General Mill

  3. 3.Ravi Raj

  4. 4.Surinder Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.State of Haryana and Others

  3. 3.Director Food and Supplies Haryana

  4. 4.District Food and Supplies controller Karnal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh PuriView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Deepak Rice and General Mill's application for arbitrator appointment under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court found that the applicant failed to prove proper notice of the arbitration clause was served on the respondent State of Haryana, as no receipt was produced and the notices were either addressed to non-parties or lacked proof of delivery to the actual party signatory. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. ARB/734/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Deepak Rice and General Mill's application for arbitrator appointment under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court found that the applicant failed to prove proper notice of the arbitration clause was served on the respondent State of Haryana, as no receipt was produced and the notices were either addressed to non-parties or lacked proof of delivery to the actual party signatory. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case