FAO 4560 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on 12.1.2010. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (PUNSUP) --Appellant vs. M/S Luxmi Rice Mills and others --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia,Advocate, for the appellant Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) This appeal is directed against order dated 12.3.2009 passed by the learned District Judge,Chandigarh, vide which objection filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short,'the Act') against the award of Arbitrator dated 30.6.2005, has been dismissed. Briefly stated, the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (for short, PUNSUP), entered into an agreement dated 07.10.1994 for custom milling of paddy for the crop year 1994-95, with the respondent/miller and supplied 83 bags weighing 53.95 quintals of IR-8 paddy and 51297 bags weighing 33343.05 quintals of Fine-6 variety paddy. As per agreement, the respondent/miller was to supply milled rice to the Food Corporation of India in the account of PUNSUP, but it failed to supply and the milled paddy was sold at the risk and cost of the FAO 4560 of 2009 2 respondent/miller. Initially, the PUNSUP preferred a claim of Rs. 26,92,052.58. In reply, the respondent/miller stated that there was a shortage of space with the FCI and the date for supply of rice was extended to 30.6.1995, but before that date, the paddy was sold in open sale by way of publication. It was, thus, submitted that there was no failure on the part of the miller. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, PUNSUP submitted its revised claim and reduced it to Rs.73,266.75 on account of net recoverable amount. The Arbitrator found that Rs.44,053.96 has been claimed on account of driage which was once allowed but later on disallowed by the PUNSUP to which the miller was found entitled and after deducting that amount, the Arbitrator found that the miller was liable to pay only Rs. 19210.79 which was to be adjusted against the security deposit of Rs.30,000/- and at last it was found that nothing is due towards the miller. Consequently, the claim filed by the PUNSUP before the Arbitrator was dismissed. In the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act, it was alleged that the earlier 2% driage benefit was given to the miller which was later on withdrawn as per guidelines of the Government which entitled the PUNSUP to recover the cost of 59.45 quintals of rice amounting to Rs.44,053.96 along with interest on the late delivery of rice. The learned District Judge, extensively referred to the provisions of Section 34 of the Act and had opined that no such ground is available to the PUNSUP and if the Arbitrator had given benefit of 2% driage to the miller, then it was given by the PUNSUP, therefore, the arbitration award cannot be held to be erroneous or illegal. As such, it was FAO 4560 of 2009 3 found that the objection has been filed without there being any ground under Section 34 of the Act and the same was dismissed. Though, the PUNSUP is in appeal before this Court, but despite all vehemence on its command, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any error in the order of the learned District Judge by raising any meaningful argument before this Court. Therefore, I do not find any reason to tinker with the findings recorded by learned District Judge in the impugned order In view of the above, the present appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine, though without any order as to costs. 12.1.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge