FAO No.3323 of 2007 -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3323 of 2007 Date of decision:12.10.2010. The Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Ujaggar Mal Sat Pal, Nakodar ...Respondent CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh dated 16.11.2006 by which objection filed by the appellants herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short “the Act”], has been dismissed. In brief, the parties to the dispute entered into an agreement dated 22.11.1996, as per which the appellants had supplied 73380 bags, weighing 47697 quintals, of fine variety of paddy and 1396 bags, weighing 907.40 quintals, of common variety paddy to M/s Ujaggarmal Satpal Rice Mills [for short “Miller”] for custom milling. Out of this agreement, a dispute arose between the parties, which was referred to the Arbitrator at FAO No.3323 of 2007 -2- ****** the instance of the appellants and the sole Arbitrator, vide his award dated 20.06.2002 awarded a sum of `6,07,545/- to the appellants along with interest @ 18% per annum from 01.06.2002 till realization or decree, whichever is earlier. The Miller filed objection under Section 34 of the Act before the Civil Court at Jalandhar on 12.09.2002, whereas the appellants herein had filed objection under Section 34 of the Act before the Civil Court at Chandigarh on 17.10.2002. Needless to mention that the Miller had challenged the entire award, whereas the appellants herein had questioned the rate of interest which was awarded by the Arbitrator. While the objection filed by the appellants herein was pending before the Civil Court at Chandigarh, the objection filed by the Miller before the Civil Court at Jalandhar was dismissed on 23.08.2005. Thereafter, the objection filed by the appellants herein was dismissed by the Civil Court at Chadigarh only on the ground that since the objection filed by the Miller before the Jalandhar Court has been contested by the appellants and the same has been dismissed, therefore, the objection filed by the appellants at Chandigarh was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the order passed by the Court below is patently illegal because the objection filed by the Miller was against the total award, whereas the appellants had filed their objection with regard to the rate of interest awarded. She also submits that the learned Court below has dismissed the objection simply only on the ground that since the objection filed by the Miller at Jalandhar has been dismissed, therefore, they have no right to pursue their own objection. To my mind, there is total fallacy in the approach of the learned Court below because against the arbitral award both the parties can file their objections and if the question of territorial jurisdiction is raised, the learned Court below could have decide the same, but it has not decided it rather the objection filed by the appellants herein has been dismissed only on the ground that the objection filed by the Miller has been contested by the appellants, therefore, they have no right to pursue their own FAO No.3323 of 2007 -3- ****** objection. In view thereof, the present appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Civil Court at Chandigarh for deciding the objection filed by the appellants herein, in accordance with the law. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 08.11.2010. October 12, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE