Dismissed

Kishan Lal Goyal and Company v. Punjab State Civil Supplies and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Sept 2009FAO/4763/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the appellant challenged the dismissal of their Section 34 objections regarding an arbitral award that allegedly failed to adjust certain deposits. The court held that calculation errors are remedies under Section 33, not grounds for setting aside under Section 34.

What did the court decide?

The objection to set aside the award was held insufficient and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Kishan Lal Goyal and Company Vs Punjab State Civil… — Arbitration | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

FAO No. 4763 of 2008 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO No. 4763 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: September 08, 2009

¶4

Kishan Lal Goyal and Company

¶5

Versus

¶6

Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and others .......Respondent(s)

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present:

¶10

Mr. R S Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant

¶11

-.-

¶12

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

¶16

This is an appeal against the order dated 01.09.2008 passed by the District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the 1996 Act') filed by the appellant, for setting aside of the Award dated 18.05.2004, were dismissed.

¶17

While challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the finding arrived at by the District Judge to the effect that the objections under Section 34 of the 1996 Act were not maintainable and the appropriate remedy for the appellant was under

¶18

FAO No. 4763 of 2008 (O&M) 2

¶19

Section 33 of the 1996 Act, is incorrect, as it was not appreciated that the present case is not for correction of any technical or typographical error to fall within the ambit of Section 33 of the 1996 Act.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard.

¶21

The primary objection as raised by the appellant before the

¶22

District Judge, Jalandhar was that in the claim petition before the Arbitrator, the respondent Corporation had, itself, mentioned that a sum of Rs.1,77,085.90 ps was due to the appellant in respect of the transaction in dispute. In spite thereof, credit of the same was not given by the Arbitrator while passing the award. Similarly, other amounts were also deposited towards the amount due from the appellant, but the same were also not taken into consideration by the Arbitrator. It was further stated that the amount payable to the respondent-corporation was to be adjusted in the accounts, which has not been done by the Arbitrator.

¶23

It is obvious that the objection above is with respect to calculation, adjustment of amount, for which, the appellant has a remedy under the Act. The same cannot be made a ground for setting aside the award.

¶24

After having perused the impugned order and award and also having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned order dated 01.09.2008 passed by the District Judge, Jalandhar. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, is not sufficient for setting aside the

¶25

FAO No. 4763 of 2008 (O&M) 3

¶26

award. No illegally has been pointed out. Further, no ground, which may have enabled the District Judge, Jalandhar to set aside the award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, is pleaded. The argument that certain amounts were not adjusted, cannot be a ground for setting aside the award

¶27

The appeal is accordingly dismissed, being devoid of merits.

¶28

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶29

September 08, 2009 mohan

Kishan Lal Goyal and Company v. Punjab State Civil Supplies and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Lal Goyal and Company v. Punjab State Civil Supplies and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Raj Kumar and Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs Gurdev Singh

Moh. Amin @ Amin etc. Vs Shaymuddin

M/S Mada Cotton Ginning Vs Gurcharan Kaur & Ors.

Charanjit Kaur and Anr. Vs General Public

Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. etc. Vs M/S Durga Rice Mills and Others