IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 4686 of 2006
Date of decision:17.02.2009
M/s Abhishek Rice and General Mills,
Badhani Kalan, District Faridkot and others ....Appellants
versus
M/s Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited
and others. ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms.Deepali Puri, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
----
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (Oral)
Sole Arbitrator passed the arbitral award on 11th September,
2001, awarding an amount of Rs.5,50,23,137/-, payable by respondent-
firm to the appellant, observing as under :-
” I, therefore, award an amount of Rs.5,50,23,137/-
payable by the Respondent firm and its proprietor to the
claimant as on 31.3.1998 with further interest thereon @
18% from 1.4.1998 till 23.9.1998. From this total amount a
sum of Rs.30 lacs deposited by the Respondent firm on
24.9.1998 shall be deducted. The net amount thus arrived at
shall be payable from 24.9.1998 with further interest @ 18%
p.a. till realization excluding the period from 11.7.2000
(when the claimant informally requested that the award in
this case may be deferred for some time to 31.8.2001 when
the claimant through its dealing official informed verbally
that the award may be given and supplied stamp paper for
this purpose). The award is accordingly given in favour of
the claimants and against the Respondent firm and its
proprietor who will be jointly and severally liable for the
FAO No. 4686 of 2006 -2-
same. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
both the parties are left to bear their own costs.”
Aggrieved against this award, objections under Section 34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) were
filed by the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (PUNSUP).
Those objections have been dismissed by the Additional District Judge,
Chandigarh vide order dated 1st December, 2005. Admittedly, no
objections under Section 34 of the Act were filed by the appellant.
However, they filed the present appeal before this Court. At the first
instance, a question was put to the counsel for the appellant as to how the
present appeal is maintainable.
On 19th March, 2008, learned counsel for the applicant-
appellant sought time to satisfy the Court regarding the maintainability
of appeal.
Shri Mukand Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant could not point out any provision of law to this Court under
which an appeal could be filed straightway to this Court without
challenging the award of the Arbitrator under Section 34 of the Act.
In view of above, I do not find any merit in the present
appeal and the same is dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
JUDGE
17.02.2009
sanjeev