FAO No. 5323 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5323 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.05.2011 Pashupati Rice Mills Private Limited ...Appellant Versus The Managing Director and others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the learned court below whereby the objections filed by the appellant, were dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the parties entered into an agreement for milling of paddy on 18.10.2002. The dispute arose on account of the fact that after agreement, 68,336 bags of paddy (fine) weighing 23,917.60 quintals was handed over by the respondents to the appellant-miller, out of which only 1,040 bags weighing 364 quintals paddy were transferred against advance rice (sella) weighing 247.50 quintals. As per the agreement, the appellant-miller was to deliver rice against paddy at regular intervals upto 30.06.2003. But balance rice against 67,296 bags of paddy was not delivered to the Food Corporation of India. Details evident from claim statement of respondents are reproduced hereunder:- ”Bags Weight (in Qntl) Paddy stored (Fine) 68,336 23,917.60 (35 Kg. each) Paddy transferred against 1,040 364.00 Advance rice (sella) weighing FAO No. 5323 of 2010 2 247.50 Qntls. Balance Paddy 67,296 23,553.60 Rice due (Sella) @ 68% 16,016.45 A. amount claimed by the claimant (amount in ` ) Cost of balance rice 16,016.45 1,63,17,559.00 Qntls. @ ` 1,018.80 Ps per qntls. Cost of bags remained with the 12,49,285.00 Miller 67296 Bags @ 20.05 per bags Sales tax @ 4.4% on the price of bags 59,369.00 Total 1,77,26,213.00” The matter was referred for arbitration. The Arbitrator in his award held that the appellant is liable to pay ` 1,77,26,213/- along with future interest @ 21% per annum w.e.f. 1.10.2003 till the date of recovery. Against the aforesaid award, the appellant filed objections before the court below. The same having been rejected, the appellant-miller is before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant was asked to furnish information to the court regarding the quantity of paddy received by him for shelling and rice delivered back to the respondents after shelling. This was to find out as to how much amount according to the appellant is due to be paid to the corporation. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has not provided him the details. The only stand of the learned counsel for the appellant is that whatever paddy was given by the corporation, rice against the same was returned to it. Appellant in the present case was proceed against ex parte before the Arbitrator as he failed to appear despite service. The appellant in the present case has not come to the court with clean hand. He is concealing material facts from the court as the information sought by the court is not being furnished. Considering the aforesaid fact, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned court below. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. FAO No. 5323 of 2010 3 (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 02.05.2011 sharmila