Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Highways Authority Of India vs Chander Kanta And Another on 10 November, 2025
CR-8035-2025 -1-
127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-8035-2025
DECIDED ON: 10.11.2025
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
CHANDER KANTA AND ANOTHER
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present: Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been preferred by National
Highways Authority of India (NHAI) under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India challenging the order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the learned
Executing Court, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner-Judgment
Debtor to the execution petition filed by Decree Holders for execution of
decree dated 31.10.2023 have been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
learned Executing Court committed a grave illegality in rejecting the
objections. It is argued that the award dated 31.10.2023 was passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, against NHAI, Regional
Office, Chandigarh, whereas in the execution petition, the NHAI, Regional
Office, Panchkula has been arrayed as the judgment debtor. It is urged that
both offices are distinct administrative entities functioning under separate
1 of 4
Project Implementation Units (PIUs), and therefore, execution against the
Panchkula office is not maintainable. Counsel further contends that the
Tribunal at Chandigarh lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 166(2) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the accident in question occurred in District
Kinnaur (Himachal Pradesh), the claimants were residents of that area, and
the vehicle involved was owned by the Himachal Road Transport
Corporation having its office at Shimla. It is, therefore, argued that the
Tribunal at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide
the claim, and the award passed is without jurisdiction and consequently a
nullity.
3. It has further been submitted that the petitioner-NHAI was
never served properly during the MACT proceedings, and that one official of
Himachal Pradesh PWD, Rampur, who appeared initially, did so under a
mistaken impression, though that department is distinct from NHAI. The
petitioner thus remained unrepresented, and the award was passed ex parte.
The petitioner has also filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC
before the learned Tribunal seeking to set aside the ex parte award, which is
pending consideration. It is thus contended that the impugned order
dismissing the objections is perverse and liable to be set aside.
4. Since the short controversy is involved in the present revision
petition, no notice is required to be issued to the respondents.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the record.
6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned
Executing Court has given detailed findings on each of the issues raised by
the petitioner. The learned District Judge, Chandigarh has rightly observed
2 of 4
that both the Regional Office at Chandigarh and Regional Office at
Panchkula are functioning under the same statutory authority, namely the
National Highways Authority of India, established under the National
Highways Authority of India Act, 1988, and therefore, the distinction in
address does not alter the legal character of the judgment debtor. The
execution petition filed against NHAI, Regional Office, Panchkula, cannot
be said to be misconceived merely because of variation in the office address,
as the liability under the award remains that of NHAI as a statutory body.
7. As regards the contention that the award passed by the MACT,
Chandigarh is without territorial jurisdiction, the same cannot be entertained
in execution proceedings. The Executing Court cannot go behind the decree
or examine its correctness on merits. The only exception to this settled rule
is where the decree is a nullity for want of inherent jurisdiction. However,
the award passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any such patent lack
of jurisdiction, as it was passed after issuance of notice to NHAI and upon
consideration of the evidence available. Moreover, an application under
Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte award has already
been filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, and the said forum is
competent to adjudicate upon that issue.
8. The question whether the accident occurred within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Tribunal or whether NHAI was rightly impleaded are
matters touching upon the correctness of the adjudication and not the
inherent jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Such questions cannot be reopened
before the Executing Court, nor can they be made a ground to obstruct
execution of an award which is presently valid and binding.
3 of 4
9. The learned Executing Court has also rightly observed that once
an award has attained finality, the judgment debtor cannot avoid payment by
resorting to technical objections regarding office nomenclature or territorial
issues. The finding recorded by the Executing Court that NHAI, Chandigarh
and NHAI, Panchkula operate under the same legal and administrative
umbrella is fully justified and in consonance with law.
10. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error
in the impugned order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the learned District
Judge, Chandigarh. The impugned order is well-reasoned and based on a
correct appreciation of the facts and settled principles governing execution
proceedings.
11. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition,
the same is hereby dismissed.
12. It is, however, made clear that any observation made in this
order shall not affect the merits of the application filed by the petitioner
under Order IX Rule 13 CPC before the learned MACT, Chandigarh, which
shall be decided independently in accordance with law.
13. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
10.11.2025 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
