Dismissed

Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federaion Ltd. Chd v. M/S Sh Ganesh Rice Traders Malout

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jan 2019FAO/6468/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the dismissal of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The court condoned the 11-day delay under the Limitation Act. While hearing the appeal, the court declined to reappraise evidence or interfere with the Arbitrator's award, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The 11-day delay was condoned, but the First Appeal was dismissed and the objection to the award was not interfered with.

Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing… — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

FAO No. 6468 of 2018

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No. 6468 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.01.2019

¶5

Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Chandigarh

¶6

...... Appellant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s Ganesh Rice Traders Malout

¶9

..... Respondent

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶11

Present: Mr. Shivam Grover, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

¶13

JAISHREE THAKUR, J.

¶14

CM-22493-CII-2018

¶15

This is an application that has been filed under Section 5

¶16

of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the instant appeal.

¶17

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

¶18

allowed.

¶19

Delay of 11 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

¶20

FAO No. 6468 of 2018

¶21

The appellant Punjab State Cooperative Supply and

¶22

SATYAWAN 2019.01.28 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

FAO No. 6468 of 2018

¶24

-2-

¶25

Marketing Federation Ltd., Chandigarh, seeks to challenge the order dated 06.11.2017 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶26

In brief, the facts are that agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent M/s Sh Ganesh Rice Traders to mill paddy. As per agreement, the appellant supplied 48,853 bags weighing 17098.55 quintals of grade 'A' paddy for storage. Out of these, 1,29,870 bags weighing 45454.5 quintals of paddy was issued for milling. The respondent milled 15659.03 quintals of paddy out of 48,853 bags weighing 17098.50 quintals, leaving 3661 bags weighing 1281.35 quintals of paddy with the respondent. On account of shortage, a dispute arose and the matter was referred by the Managing Director to the sole Arbitrator. The claim petition was filed claiming that the total amount of 4,23,494/was to be recovered from the respondent-miller. The respondent also led evidence and claimed adjustment of the amount due to it from the claimant. Both parties were given adequate opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claim. Thereafter, on appreciation of the evidence, the Arbitrator allowed the claim of the appellant to the extent of 3,48,310/- while disallowing the claim towards recovery of ` 75,184/- which was paid to FCI for storage charges etc. Aggrieved against the award which did not allow the claim in toto,

¶27

SATYAWAN 2019.01.28 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

FAO No. 6468 of 2018

¶29

-3-

¶30

objections under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was filed which too came to be dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.

¶31

Mr. Shivam Grover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently urges that the Addl. District Judge has erred in dismissing the objections, as the award of the arbitrator was patently illegal and prejudicial to the rights of the claimant appellant. It is urged that the Courts can interfere under Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 in the event of arbitrariness and illegality. It is argued that the Arbitrator by not allowing the recovery of 75,184/- made by the Food Corporation of India for storage charges, has acted in a biased manner and has travelled beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 13.10.2011. Therefore, the order dismissing the objections deserves to be set aside and claim of the appellant be allowed for a recovery of 75,184/alongwith interest.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance has gone through both, the award of the Arbitrator as well as the order dismissing objections.

¶33

The agreement between the parties is not disputed. The Arbitrator on appreciation of evidence of the claimant-appellant herein and the respondent, awarded an amount of ` 3,48,310/- in favour of the claimant. As per section 34(2) of the Arbitration and

¶34

SATYAWAN 2019.01.28 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

FAO No. 6468 of 2018

¶36

-4-

¶37

Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope of interference of an award of the Arbitrator is limited & until and unless the Objector can satisfy any of the provisions specified thereunder, the award of the Arbitrator is not to be interfered with. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mcdermott International Inc. Vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd., 2006(2) Arb. LR 498 (SC) . In Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. Versus Hindustan Copper Ltd., AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2071 , where it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the Courts cannot reappraise evidence under Section 34 of the Act.

¶38

The Arbitrator, while relying upon the agreement came to hold that the claim of the appellant regarding recovery of charges for storage by FCI was not justified or covered under the agreement. Learned counsel for the appellant herein has not been able to satisfy this court otherwise.

¶39

In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the award of the Arbitrator or to set aside the order so passed on the objection petition.

¶40

The instant First Appeal stands dismissed.

¶41

16.01.2019 (JAISHREE THAKUR) Satyawan JUDGE

¶42

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes. Whether reportable No.

¶43

SATYAWAN 2019.01.28 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federaion Ltd. Chd v. M/S Sh Ganesh Rice Traders Malout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federaion Ltd. Chd v. M/S Sh Ganesh Rice Traders Malout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Pitambra Books Private Limited Vs State Project Director and Ors.

Punjab Markfed Vs Pratham Rice Mills

(O&M) Ajudhaya Nath Goel Vs Vijay Kumar

Mohinderjit Kaur Vs Rajinder Kumar

Usha Vs Adish Bawa and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Singla Vs Gautam Lal and Ors.