FAO No. 3841 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 3841 of 2009 Date of decision: August 26, 2009 The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (Markfed) through its Additional Managing Director ........ Appellants Versus Ram Singh and others .......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Vishal Chaudhri, Advocate for the appellant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. C M No. 17889 CII of 2009 Civil Miscellaneous application is allowed and the documents (Annexures A-1 to A-3) annexed with it, are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main case This is an appeal against the order dated 02.03.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the 1996 Act’) against the award dated 12.10.2005 has been dismissed. FAO No. 3841 of 2009 -2- While challenging the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plinths were not constructed in time and also not in accordance with the specifications, which fact stand corroborated vide letter dated 21.06.2001, copy whereof is appended as Annexure A-2. As such, no possession of the plinths constructed under specified specifications were taken over by the appellant. Accordingly, the respondents were paid rent under the general hiring scheme at the rate of 12 paise per quintal only and not at the rate of 40 paise per square feet, as agreed under under Clause 12 of the agreement. Thus, the Additional District Judge had erred in law while discarding the cogent evidence produced by the appellant. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant did not get any opportunity to make their submissions as the Arbitrator had wrongly proceeded ex-parte against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Additional District Judge had directed both the parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 08.10.2005 up to 1.00 p.m. It is also not denied by learned counsel for the appellant that the aforesaid order was passed by the Additional District Judge in the presence of the learned counsel for both the parties. No reason has been assigned for not appearing before the Arbitrator on the date fixed, in spite of the fact that the order to appear before the Arbitrator was passed in the presence of the learned counsel for both the parties. Grounds of the appeal have been perused. But there is no explanation for non-appearance on the date fixed for the same before the Arbitrator. As such, no fault can be found with the Arbitrator for proceeding ex-parte against the appellant. It is also evident from the order dated 02.03.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh that the plinths FAO No. 3841 of 2009 -3- were duly used by the appellant-Markfed, as per the agreement. Once, it is established that the plinths were used by the Markfed, it cannot refuse to pay rent, as agreed, for the same on the ground that the plinths were not constructed in accordance with the specifications. The appellant has, therefore, failed to make out a case for interference in the well reasoned order dated 02.03.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the objection filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 26, 2009 mohan