FAO No.3948 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.3948 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 17.05.2010 **** The Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited through its District Manager, Markfed, Sangrur . . . . Appellant VS. M/s Jindal Rice Mills, Dhuri Sangrur and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Ms.Deepali Puri, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against order dated 6.4.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur whereby, an objection filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) against the Arbitral Award dated 8.2.2007, has been dismissed. The appellant was the claimant before the Arbitrator. While dismissing the claim petition, the Arbitrator had observed that neither the claimed amount of Rs.4,93,950/- nor alleged interest is payable by the respondents to the claimants. This conclusion has been drawn on the basis of finding recorded as under: - “Entire due amount was paid by the respondent to the claimants, has also been FAO No.3948 of 2009 - 2 - admitted by Shri Harsh Kumar AAO Markfed Sangrur, witness of the claimant in cross- examination. He has also specifically stated in the cross-examination that respondents had paid the due amount against quality cuts imposed by FCI amount due against Bardana retained by the miller along with sales tax and TDS amount etc. This witness specifically stated in the cross examination that entire account of milling was settled between respondents and claimants. He produced original ledger and copies of the same marked Annexure C-A 1, 2 were taken on record, as per which there is no amount due to be paid by the respondents to the claimants. Shri Harsh Kumar AAO also has stated that there is no other ledger concerning respondent miller. “ The learned Court also returned the same finding and had observed that the case does not fall within the parameters of Section 34 of the Act. Although, in the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Arbitral Award as well as order passed by the learned Court below are illegal but she could not found fault with the finding of the Arbitrator as noted above. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 17.05.2010 JUDGE Vivek