FAO No.3706 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.3706 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 22.09.2010 **** Kashmir Singh and others . . . . Appellant Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.R.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellants. Dr.Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) CM No.16654-CII-2009 This is an application under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for making the deficiency good in Court fee. It is submitted that initially when the appeal was filed a sum of `5/- was affixed as Court fee which should have been `500/-. It is submitted that the same has been affixed but the permission of this Court is sought for making the deficiency good. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is hereby allowed. CM stands disposed of. FAO No.3706 of 2009 This appeal is directed against the order passed by District Judge, Gurdaspur dated 17.03.2009 by which objections filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised two points before this Court, namely, (i) that the Arbitrator has decided excepted matter and; FAO No.3706 of 2009 (O&M) -2- (ii) that the appellants are the partners of the firm whereas the party to the agreement was the firm itself, therefore, they cannot be made liable. In reply, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the question of jurisdiction of the Arbitrator was neither raised by the learned counsel for the appellants before the Arbitrator nor in the objections filed under Section 34 of the Act, therefore, it cannot be raised for the first time before this Court in appeal under Section 37 of the Act. She also submits that agreement dated 22.10.2001 was entered into on behalf of the firm by Sukhjinder Singh on the strength of special power of attorney dated 19.10.2001 which was executed by all the persons including the appellants authorizing him to act on behalf of the firm and unlike company a firm is a compendium of partners who are jointly and severally liable for the act of the firm. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the appellants cannot be allowed to raise question of jurisdiction for the first time before this Court in appeal under Section 37 of the Act as question of jurisdiction has to be raised before the Arbitrator and insofar as liability of the appellants is concerned, they themselves are to be blamed as they have given special power of attorney to Sukhjinder Singh on 19.10.2001 on the basis of which he had entered into agreement on 22.10.2001 and being partners are liable for the act of the firm. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the arbitral award or order of the learned Court below dated 17.3.2009 passed in objections filed under Section 34 of the Act. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 JUDGE Vivek